Electability fairy tale: That Obama won't win the states HRC took in the primary, even though...

...Dem turnout has consistently been three and four times higher than Rape-Publican turnout this season.

So, now that Obama's the nominee, all those Dem primary voters are going to suddenly vote for McBush in the GE??

Dream on, trolls.

NGU.

nevermind that it's the Operation Chaos cross-overs engineered by Rush just going back under
the rocks they crawled out from to bugger the Dem. Primary.

I grew up in Pgh, Pa. At least western Pa. is blue collar Dems, but there really are a lot of racists there too. I hope that has changed in recent years, but the old foggies still vote.

LOL.

though in February she won NJ by 10 points. There's been a shift.

:rofl:

Hill only by one-point more than Obama.

And this is right after he just spent $16 million in that state while McSame has yet to spend a dime...

Pennsylvania: Clinton tops McCain 51 - 37 percent; Obama leads McCain 47 - 38 percent.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1173

So as you can see he doesn't just lead by 1-point in PA but by 9.

Note that McCain only does 1-point better vs. Obama (37% vs. 38%) because there are more undecideds with Obama vs. McCain.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pennsylvania.html

Pennsylvania Obama +1.2 Clinton +6.8

and I believe this is the most recent poll of PA in the GE.

;)

...FIVE TIMES the number of voters that the Rape-Publicans had in PA. And equally large turnouts in every other contest. Are the vast majority of those voters just gonna disappear now?

NGU.

With the war still on (which McCain is promising for the next century) and the economy in a recession?

Yeah, the war was on and the economy was even worse in 2004...

The economy was much better compared to now, there were no gas price issues, and the war was only a little over a year old.

Compare Bush's approval rating, which was still respectable, to the historic level it is at now.

Specific numbers and supporting links, please.

(By the way, the constant use of the word "idiocy" by someone who has such trouble spelling simple words is rather funny...)

NGU.

:rofl: in 2004 the rethug primary in Ohio was as meaningless as the 2008 rethug primary in PA because the rethugs already had a nominee.

Yes, I prefer speed to spelling on the internet. I am not writing academic papers here.

I'll say it again. Dem turnout has consistently been three and four times higher than Rape-Publican turnout throughout this entire season. Even when Mittens and Huckleberry were in the race.

You question my recall of political history when you seem to be oblivious to what happened only weeks ago??

:rofl:

NGU.

:rofl:

Obama supporters probably don't know who Dukakis is because they are supporting the second coming of Dukakis...

I'm waiting...

NGU.

The Giants won the Super Bowl. I don't remember the box score. Does this mean that perhaps Manning threw 6 interceptions and they lost?

...Dem turnout we've seen this year. So prove it.

NGU.

27 year.

Repub infighting.

Evangelical voters not voting en mass for repubs.

Its popular to be a clothcoat republican again.

Its not popular to be a neo con.

Yeah oblivious is the word, blathering is another

compulsion to use the word "rape' by the way. What's that about?

NGU.

that denies the reality of rape.

However - I do agree with the thought of the pillage and destruction wrought by successive GOP administrations.

Clinton had held on to that 20+ point lead she had in early March.

wow, he can win 31 but thats no sign?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/a-barack-obama.html

A Barack Obama Surprise in New Jersey Polls
Top of the Ticket
LA Times
A Barack Obama surprise in New Jersey poll results
Funny how that recent memo from Hillary Clinton loyalist Harold Ickes recapping all sorts of positive poll numbers for her didn't include a survey from her neck of the woods.
A late April poll of New Jersey voters by Braun Research found -- no real surprise -- that either Clinton or Barack Obama would win the state and its 15 electoral votes in November against John McCain. The surprise was that Obama ran substantially ahead of McCain, more so than Clinton. He beat the presumptive Republican presidential nominee by 24 percentage points; her margin was 14 points.
And here was the real shocker: In a state where Clinton, senator from neighboring New York, won the Feb. 5 primary by 10 points, 45% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents now said they wanted to see Obama as the party's nominee, compared with 38% who picked Clinton.
Less than three months after Clinton's primary win, "some New Jersey voters feel buyer’s remorse,” said poll director Patrick Murray.
The survey was conducted largely before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's rancorous session at the National Press Club in Washington last week caused major political turmoil for Obama, so perhaps a snapshot taken this week of voter attitudes in the Garden State might not be so rosy for him.
By the same token, the Braun poll was taken in the immediate wake of Clinton's intensive campaign -- and solid primary win -- in Pennsylvania, a state that shares several media markets with a fair chunk of New Jersey.
-- Don Frederick

"And here was the real shocker: In a state where Clinton, senator from neighboring New York, won the Feb. 5 primary by 10 points, 45% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents now said they wanted to see Obama as the party's nominee, compared with 38% who picked Clinton.
Less than three months after Clinton's primary win, "some New Jersey voters feel buyer’s remorse,” said poll director Patrick Murray."

I would freakin' hope so after the campaign hilary ran into the ground and below.

Jersey girls and boys are hip to that shit.

:thumbsup: I am sure this will get 100 recs.

NGU.

Speaking of confused...

Speaking of confused...

NGU.

It is 1988, as we probably will discover on November 4... :(

Tell you what...

Why don't you give me a numerical breakdown of the 1988 primary results in each of the 50 states - with supporting links of course?

I'm willing to be proven wrong.

NGU.

Nationally, Dukakis had a double digit lead over George H. W. Bush. That lead was blown by Dukakis remaining in Massachusetts for a large part of the general election cycle, and not answering attacks being thrown at him by the Bush campaign and its surrogates.

Not all elections are the same. You might as well ask what the "math" was in the 1860 primaries.

Not gonna happen.

:kick:

i`m following the logical steps in their posts that obama can not possibly win because they won`t vote democratic...trolls? maybe or they just might be people who think we can`t see the falsie in their argument

The RNC ran a very integrated state and national campaign in 2004, with multiple ballot initiatives in key states in order to increase turnout of their base. Much of the Republican turnout was due to this, with more social conservatives voting due to state initiatives on Same-Sex Marriage.

Whether or not such an effort would be successful this cycle remains to be seen. The GOP is hemorrahging money, particularly the state parties. Plus they're running a national candidate who certainly isn't the best one to unify the Republican base.

:shrug:

Uh...

Move along ... nothing to see here...

This primary has seen the largest turnout in 40 years. so this isnt 2004

nor will he win in the GE all of the states that he won in the primary election. He won't win Ohio or Missouri for example which pretty much means he won't win the election. Hillary, on the otherhand, does very well in both of these states.

I think it was Obama, but maybe you know more than I do, since I read the news and you seem to make it up.

Don't believe me? Here's a link.

http://news.aol.com/elections/primary/main/democrats

By the way, Obama and Clinton got more votes combined in MO than ALL the Republican candidates including Huckabee, Romney, etc etc etc.

Obama got more than twice as many votes than McCain, more than McCain and Huckabee combined.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/MO.html

likely voters as in the primary election itself. As is typical of Obama, he does well when he has to compete in his own party but when it's time to compete for votes in a mixed pool of voters, he falls short by large margins unlike Hillary who does exactly the opposite for reasons that are perfectly fucking clear. Furthermore, this was the point I was making to which you responded. I told you that, in the GE, he won't win some of the states that Hillary won i.e. Ohio and he won't win some of the states that he won i.e. Missouri. I guess in your fervor to throw out weak talking points, that escaped you.

...in the primaries, what happens in the GE? Do all those Dems vanish into thin air?

NGU.

In NH, recent polling data strongly suggests that those "undeclared" voters are not entirely happy with Obama and are leaning towards McCain (to the tune of 10 points) in a face off between those two. To be fair, They also lean towards McCain in a face off between him and Hillary but to the tune of 3 points. This suggests that, in NH at least, the record number of primary voters were not turning out entirely for Obama as is the popular DU meme. The numbers I just quoted can be verified at this site http://www.electoral-vote.com/">at this site which has been a fantastic political reference site for political junkies like us for the past several elections. So, just looking at NH, I think we can say that those record numbers of DEM voters weren't just coming out for Obama and, when it comes down to a face off between Obama and McCain, they favor McCain. So those Dems don't "vanish into thin air", they just vote for someone else. I imagine it's much the same elsewhere, Florida and Ohio for sure.

Oh and http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/new-hampshire-t.html">this is the site I used to come up with the roughly 150,000 undecalred voters in NH.

This http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/voter-turnout-in-new-hampshire-sets-primary-record/">site listed the NH turnout as being around 530,000 which is a record. (yes, it's FOX news but I'm sure it's accurate enough for this exercise).

Which deflates their original argument.

A lot of Clinton voters will perceive McCain as the lesser of the two evils in an Obama/McCain face off. That's what you get when you run an ultra liberal black candidate with a Muslim name and a preacher/mentor/spiritual advisor that preaches black liberation theology. What do you expect?

...is African. Second, if you honestly believe he's "ultra liberal," either you haven't been paying attention, or your views are so extremely RW that they'd embarass Dick Cheney**.

NGU.

what a sad post to read here.

So you're saying those Hillary supporters really were Rush plants, then? If they're the sort of ignorant racists you are describing, I guess they wouldn't feel very comfortable as part of the democratic party. The entire smear is faulty (i.e. "muslim + black (christian) - which really demonstrates the racism behind that statement. I'm not saying you are a racist, but your argument is FOR racists to make choices for democrats.

It's really no jewel in her crown for Hillary supporter to claim she's better because the racists like her.

The fact that Candidate A beat Candidate B gives you exactly no information as to whether Candidate Z would beat Candidate B.

as a Massachusetts resident, I know that this state (which voted Hillary) will vote for the democrat no matter who wins this primary. Of course, that is completely stating the obvious... xD