tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post2305984586235827559..comments2023-10-22T09:18:16.885-04:00Comments on Far and Wide: Indiana The "Tiebreaker"?Steve Vhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-50399181874726577492008-04-28T08:17:00.000-04:002008-04-28T08:17:00.000-04:00Oh ya, and get your facts straight. Obama TRAILS ...Oh ya, and get your facts straight. Obama TRAILS McCain by 8 in Indiana. Obama also trails by 9 in Virginia, interestingly Clinton more competitive in West Virginia.<BR/><BR/>The fact you need to exaggerate to make you point, means there isn't much there, once you do a state by state analysis. Whatever potential gains are clearly offset by potential weakness.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-10883711107744042102008-04-28T08:14:00.000-04:002008-04-28T08:14:00.000-04:00ClaudeTalk about cherry picking, maybe should look...Claude<BR/><BR/>Talk about cherry picking, maybe should look at some more polls of Ohio and Florida. Obama loses badly in Florida, Clinton basically tied. Clinton within the margin of error, Obama 12 points back. In Ohio, Clinton leads, while Obama loses. Those are the averages, no CHERRY PICKING. You're the one spinning, I'm just going by the average. What about Missouri? <BR/><BR/>Newsweek has a good, overall, reputation. I found that number high, but others were trending Obama too in a bigger way, plenty of 10% leads. You can see trends by looking at the same pollster, and the big shift for Newsweek in one week, does say something.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-64122930867033195652008-04-28T02:53:00.000-04:002008-04-28T02:53:00.000-04:00Oh please, it's the same polling outfit, with resu...<I><BR/>Oh please, it's the same polling outfit, with results one week apart. A very well respected poll I might add. Did I make up the independents numbers?<BR/></I> <BR/><BR/>Well respected? They were showing a 19 point lead for Obama whereas every other poling company during the same period was showing 2-6 points lead for Obama. Newsweek has been an outlier.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>And, if you think any Democrat will only get 59% of the African American vote in a general election, you have no clue.</I> <BR/><BR/>I did not say that Clinton will get only 59% AA vote but that Clinton's poor numbers among this group indicates a lack of enthusiasm towards her which could lead to a low AA turnout, which will flip many of the key midwestern states to McCain.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>One other point, people point to potential pickup states for Obama. That is an intriguing scenario, but it tends to only tell half the story. Polls also show Obama losing in Ohio and Florida, which would make these theoretical gains meaningless.</I><BR/><BR/>Polls are also showing Clinton on an average losing to McCain in Florida and Ohio. In case of Ohio she is losing by almost the same margin as Obama <A>http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/state_toplines/ohio/ohio_general_election_toplines_april_8_2008</A>. Not only that she also trailing McCain in states like Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon (Obama is doing very well in these states). The only state in which Hillary has a sizable advantage over Obama is Florida but Florida is going o be very very difficult for any democrat to win, they have a Republican congress, a republican governor who is very popular and McCain has a good reputation in the state. In anycase is it really smart to nominate someone who could lose democrat leaning swing states like wiscosin and minnesota just because they might have an outside chance at winning Florida?<BR/><BR/>On the other hand Obama brings Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, Iowa into play (states where Hillary has been polling poorly). He is even polling very strongly in republican strongholds like Indiana(where he is leading McCain by 8 points)<A>http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080424/NEWS0502/80424082</A> and North Carolina(where he is tied with McCain). Obama is clearly the smarter choice for Dems. Dems can no longer afford to put all their eggs in one basket of Ohio and Florida, it didn't get them too far in 2000 & 2004. By changing the electoral map Obama gives the democrats a lot more margin for error hence making him a better and more electable candidate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-31318544968817887242008-04-27T15:39:00.000-04:002008-04-27T15:39:00.000-04:00anonOne other point, people point to potential pic...anon<BR/><BR/>One other point, people point to potential pickup states for Obama. That is an intriguing scenario, but it tends to only tell half the story. Polls also show Obama losing in Ohio and Florida, which would make these theoretical gains meaningless.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-22275130500196537452008-04-27T15:16:00.000-04:002008-04-27T15:16:00.000-04:00Great analysis of the role Indiana can play. Obama...Great analysis of the role Indiana can play. Obama should be able to seal the deal there. Also, the Independents numbers are interesting. Independents love McCain and he is a much bigger draw for them than Obama, regardless of what the polls indicate. Hillary brings out the core Demcratic constituents, all the states won by the Democrat in the last election + Ohio, Florida and Arkansas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-56855525350073797952008-04-27T15:03:00.000-04:002008-04-27T15:03:00.000-04:00"Way to cherrypick the numbers."Oh please, it's th..."Way to cherrypick the numbers."<BR/><BR/>Oh please, it's the same polling outfit, with results one week apart. A very well respected poll I might add. Did I make up the independents numbers?<BR/><BR/>And, if you think any Democrat will only get 59% of the African American vote in a general election, you have no clue.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-46445197872118320642008-04-27T14:56:00.000-04:002008-04-27T14:56:00.000-04:00Way to cherrypick the numbers. That newsweek poll ...Way to cherrypick the numbers. That newsweek poll was way off last week. Every other poling firm was showing essentially a dead heat or a small lead for Obama. And second of all Clinton's white numbers are inflated by white women who are voting for her by more then 2 to 1 who are the biggest part of the overall democrat electorate. In the general election most of these democrat white women will most likely vote democrat. Obama is doing much better among white independents and republicans. For example today's Rasmussen tracking poll shows that among whites McCain leads Obama by twelve and Clinton by eleven. Hardly a major difference there, but among African Americans Hillary gets only 59% of the AA vote whereas Obama does very well. I'm sorry but no democrat can ever expect to win the general election with only 59% of the african american vote. In every past election blacks have voted for the democrats by 9 to 1. Hillary winning only 59% of that demographic is very very troubling for her election chances. Now you may argue that many of these people are just saying that they won't vote for Hillary in the heat of the moment, right, but it clearly shows that many of these voters will be unmotivated if the nomination is stolen for Obama and may have a low turnout. African americans might be be a smaller part of the general election electorate but they are very important for the democrats, low AA turnout in several key midwestern states can flip the state to the republicans. For example, even if the African American turnout is only 10% lower in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin perhaps even michigan it is next to impossible for her to win these states and no democrat especially a traditional one like Hillary can expect to win the GE after losing both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If the superdelates take the nomination away from Obama after he has the most elected delegates they will be inviting their own defeat in november.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-81458261920614878552008-04-27T13:08:00.000-04:002008-04-27T13:08:00.000-04:00mushroomThe last Survey USA poll, which has a very...mushroom<BR/><BR/>The last Survey USA poll, which has a very good record, gives Clinton a wide lead in North Carolina with whites:<BR/><BR/>Clinton 56%<BR/>Obama 33%<BR/><BR/>Obama leads 83% to 10% with African-Americans, which is why he has the edge, that population will make up 40% of the vote.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-45203085116330448882008-04-27T12:14:00.000-04:002008-04-27T12:14:00.000-04:00Two states that went Republican in 2000 and 2004, ...Two states that went Republican in 2000 and 2004, which has a strong chance of going Democrat in 2008. The person who bats 2 for 2 deserves to win the nomination, as they gain traction in wooing centrists and/or Reagan Democrats.<BR/><BR/>Also note Hillary's numbers in North Carolina. Has Obama's recent speeches led him to lose support among white voters there? This is assuming that Obama went into PA trailing by nine and did not gain much there.<BR/><BR/>Indiana is similar to Iowa and Missouri, a Midwest state that favoured Obama. The sole red state on the map. A Hillary win there enhances her reputation as the comeback kid and leaves the questions raised after PA unanswered.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com