Each of the top three candidates for President on the Democratic side had both their strengths and their weaknesses in my mind. In fact, there was an aspect that I liked in each, but also something that held me back.
John Edwards was the guy who probably was the purest in terms of ideological fit with me. He is the idea man. There was an article the other day that without Edwards, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama would have a platform. And while that is in some ways oversimplified, he is in many ways the conscience of the Democratic Party.
But it is a tough sell to convince America, that a rich man can be a populist and a corporate man, as the standard before for anti-corporate America. The entire nation must sympathize with the plight of Elizabeth Edwards but at the end of the day, John Edwards was too much of an enigma running against the inevitable tide of history.
For Barack Obama he is the rising star of the Democratic Party, a party that has had far too few rising stars in the last forty years and far too many empty promises. And yet for me it was not his time. Having served less than a term in the Senate, it was obvious that they could nail his inexperience to him and use it to burn him down. The voice was there but in many ways the substance seemed lacking.
And then there is the Tom Bradley factor. Up by 10 points in the polls in 1982 the night before the election, Tom Bradley narrowly lost the governorship. Why? It seemed that when the people got into the privacy of the polling booth, all they saw was a black man and they could not pull the lever for him.
For Hillary Clinton, she is the inheritor of the Clinton legacy. The only Democrat to win the presidency during my conscious lifetime. I was but three years-old when Jimmy Carter was elected and seven when he lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Hillary Clinton was probably the least ideologically in tuned to my world view. She was the fighter for health care for all before it was fashionable, but she also voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
However, one thing that you know with Hillary Clinton is that she will not be swift-boated. Attacks on her will be revisited ten-fold. Look no further than the attack they tried to pin on her with the Pentagon, she had that turned on the Pentagon in less than one news cycle.
So back and forth I went in my mind, Edwards wasn’t going to win, Obama couldn’t win the General Election, and Hillary was too establishment and too conservative.
All of that torment and uncertainty ended the day that Barack Obama won the South Carolina Primary. I listened to his speech and it sent shivers down my spin and energy into my heart.
And what was so unclear became so clear in a heartbeat. The Democrats have lost site of where they need to be and what they need to do to be there. Obama can be eloquent without preaching. He can talk about race without making White America feel guilty. And he can talk about the future with a sense of hope lifting us up where most politicians drag us down.
“Yes, we can” he said over and over again, and I believed him.
“Yes, we can change,” he said and I knew he believed it too.
He spoke about the future, he spoke about healing. Healing the divide between white and black and also white, black and Latino..
“When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can’t join together and work together, I’m reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with and stood with and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don’t tell us change can’t happen.
When I hear that we’ll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who is now devoted to educating inner city-children and who went out into the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don’t tell me we can’t change.”
He spoke about the future. Seizing the future. Fighting cynicism and believing in a common purpose.
“Yes, we can. Yes, we can change. Yes, we can.
Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can seize our future. And as we leave this great state with a new wind at our backs and we take this journey across this great country, a country we love, with the message we carry from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire, from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast, the same message we had when we were up and when we were down, that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we will hope.
And where we are met with cynicism and doubt and fear and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the American people in three simple words — yes, we can.”
Just two weeks ago, I sat at the Varsity Theater and watched the video of Martin Luther King, Jr. deliver his speech, “I have a Dream.” The remarkable thing about that speech is that it was an optimistic dream, it was a hopeful dream. He reached across the aisle to white America and implored them to see his dream because it was the American Dream. He did not make White America feel guilty about the racial politics of the day. Instead he spoke of hope and optimism.
In many ways, though their speaking styles vary, I see Barack Obama as the inheritor of the Martin Luther King, Jr. legacy. A new generation of Black leadership in this country that is not encumbered with the memories of Jim Crow because he was not born yet. A generation of Black leadership in this county who have reached beyond the racial divide, who reaches beyond the aisle of partisanship and can bring in new people to join in the voices of this country. He can reach out to White America, segments of which have struggled for decades and have been ignored for years by the Democratic party and the Black leadership.
It was Martin Luther King, Jr. who organized the impoverished Whites and Blacks, realizing that poor Whites were and would continue to be mobilized against the Black struggle as long as their poverty was ignored. We have lost that legacy and yet in Obama that legacy has been reborn.
At the end of the day though, this is about winning. John McCain is the likely Republican candidate. Against Hillary Clinton, Senator McCain controls the independent middle unencumbered and the only way that Senator Clinton wins is by dragging this race into the mud.
I can live in the mud sometimes, but that is not what this nation needs. This nation needs healing. It needs energy. It needs hope and optimism.
That is the core of the message of Ronald Reagan that so confounded Democrats who could only see his rank hypocrisy and indifference to the struggle of many. President Reagan was able to rhetorically lift up Americans, appeal to their selfish side and make them believe it was Morning in America again.
Barack Obama can reach out for that same sense of hope and optimism and bring Americans to believe that they can make the changes in this society that they so desperately need. He can bring in disaffected Black voters, apathetic young White college students, disenfranchised middle of the road voters and can expand the electorate. A McCain-Obama race would bring out the very best in this country and for once raise the level of political rhetoric.
After eight years of bitter partisan divide with George Bush, after years of bitter partisan divide in Washington, after long years of lies and deception, the nation needs healing and the best person to provide that healing is Barack Obama.
In the span of just over a week, I have gone from the fence to the passion of the newly converted. I can sit and watch Obama speeches all night long and never grow tired of him. I cannot say that about another political figure in this generation.
In the end, when I listen to Obama I really do believe:
“Yes, we can. Yes, we can change. Yes, we can.”
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Yes he is inspirational and Hillary is.. well.. just yuk..but let’s get down to brass tacks. The repeated polling is increasingly confirming that Hillary will LOSE to McCain in the General Election and Barak WINS against McCain. There is no need for “Swiftboating” Hillary( and Bill). The political narrative, e.g. the current economic picture having its roots in the Wild West oversight laxity and narcissitic tone of the Clinton Years, the Iraqi hatred of Americans having its roots in the Clinton bombings and sanctions that destroyed Iraq as a modern nation and the character flaws of the dude who would be again roaming around the White House IS documented history..
We should also take pause when thinking of bringing the Clintons back into the White House. President Nixon and Shadow-Presidents Cheney and Rumsfeld were resurrected back into Executive power in Washington and,to finish their agenda and redeem themselves in history,made unsound decisions that cost us mightily in blood, treasure and national prestige.
Yes he is inspirational and Hillary is.. well.. just yuk..but let’s get down to brass tacks. The repeated polling is increasingly confirming that Hillary will LOSE to McCain in the General Election and Barak WINS against McCain. There is no need for “Swiftboating” Hillary( and Bill). The political narrative, e.g. the current economic picture having its roots in the Wild West oversight laxity and narcissitic tone of the Clinton Years, the Iraqi hatred of Americans having its roots in the Clinton bombings and sanctions that destroyed Iraq as a modern nation and the character flaws of the dude who would be again roaming around the White House IS documented history..
We should also take pause when thinking of bringing the Clintons back into the White House. President Nixon and Shadow-Presidents Cheney and Rumsfeld were resurrected back into Executive power in Washington and,to finish their agenda and redeem themselves in history,made unsound decisions that cost us mightily in blood, treasure and national prestige.
Yes he is inspirational and Hillary is.. well.. just yuk..but let’s get down to brass tacks. The repeated polling is increasingly confirming that Hillary will LOSE to McCain in the General Election and Barak WINS against McCain. There is no need for “Swiftboating” Hillary( and Bill). The political narrative, e.g. the current economic picture having its roots in the Wild West oversight laxity and narcissitic tone of the Clinton Years, the Iraqi hatred of Americans having its roots in the Clinton bombings and sanctions that destroyed Iraq as a modern nation and the character flaws of the dude who would be again roaming around the White House IS documented history..
We should also take pause when thinking of bringing the Clintons back into the White House. President Nixon and Shadow-Presidents Cheney and Rumsfeld were resurrected back into Executive power in Washington and,to finish their agenda and redeem themselves in history,made unsound decisions that cost us mightily in blood, treasure and national prestige.
Yes he is inspirational and Hillary is.. well.. just yuk..but let’s get down to brass tacks. The repeated polling is increasingly confirming that Hillary will LOSE to McCain in the General Election and Barak WINS against McCain. There is no need for “Swiftboating” Hillary( and Bill). The political narrative, e.g. the current economic picture having its roots in the Wild West oversight laxity and narcissitic tone of the Clinton Years, the Iraqi hatred of Americans having its roots in the Clinton bombings and sanctions that destroyed Iraq as a modern nation and the character flaws of the dude who would be again roaming around the White House IS documented history..
We should also take pause when thinking of bringing the Clintons back into the White House. President Nixon and Shadow-Presidents Cheney and Rumsfeld were resurrected back into Executive power in Washington and,to finish their agenda and redeem themselves in history,made unsound decisions that cost us mightily in blood, treasure and national prestige.
Thank you Vanguard. I couldn’t have written it better myself 🙂
Thank you Vanguard. I couldn’t have written it better myself 🙂
Thank you Vanguard. I couldn’t have written it better myself 🙂
Thank you Vanguard. I couldn’t have written it better myself 🙂
My current take on the Democratic race: Clinton needs to knock Obama out, tommorow. She needs a majority of the popular vote in at least 15 states. If she fails to do that, it looks like the Obama momentum will overtake her in the late primaries and he’ll be the nominee…
Neither will have enough delegates on Wednesday to take the nomination. However, if Senator Clinton does win 15 or more states, the headlines will be, “Clinton sweeps the nation,” and the Obama campaign will be irretrievably deflated.
“The repeated polling is increasingly confirming that Hillary will LOSE to McCain in the General Election and Barak WINS against McCain.”
Regardless of what the polls say in February, I think Hillary has a better chance to win in November than Obama does. I don’t think enough Democrats pay enough heed to the facts that:
1) Senator Obama has never run in a contested partisan election in his entire life. He’s not only inexperienced in national politics; he’s inexperienced running against any opposition in a general election.
2) While liberal Democrats have no problem with voting for a guy with a foreign sounding name, Joe Six Pack in middle America is not going to pull the lever for someone named Barack Hussein Obama.
3) In a time of war, Americans want to vote for a Commander-in-Chief who has a wealth of experience at the highest levels of government.
“And then there is the Tom Bradley factor.”
The Bradley factor doesn’t mean anything in Democratic primaries, where liberals and racial minorities make up a large part of the vote. Even in California in 1982, Tom Bradley took the expected percentage of the vote in the primary. The 10 point swing happened in the general election.
My prediction: Obama wins in Davis by 20 percent.
My current take on the Democratic race: Clinton needs to knock Obama out, tommorow. She needs a majority of the popular vote in at least 15 states. If she fails to do that, it looks like the Obama momentum will overtake her in the late primaries and he’ll be the nominee…
Neither will have enough delegates on Wednesday to take the nomination. However, if Senator Clinton does win 15 or more states, the headlines will be, “Clinton sweeps the nation,” and the Obama campaign will be irretrievably deflated.
“The repeated polling is increasingly confirming that Hillary will LOSE to McCain in the General Election and Barak WINS against McCain.”
Regardless of what the polls say in February, I think Hillary has a better chance to win in November than Obama does. I don’t think enough Democrats pay enough heed to the facts that:
1) Senator Obama has never run in a contested partisan election in his entire life. He’s not only inexperienced in national politics; he’s inexperienced running against any opposition in a general election.
2) While liberal Democrats have no problem with voting for a guy with a foreign sounding name, Joe Six Pack in middle America is not going to pull the lever for someone named Barack Hussein Obama.
3) In a time of war, Americans want to vote for a Commander-in-Chief who has a wealth of experience at the highest levels of government.
“And then there is the Tom Bradley factor.”
The Bradley factor doesn’t mean anything in Democratic primaries, where liberals and racial minorities make up a large part of the vote. Even in California in 1982, Tom Bradley took the expected percentage of the vote in the primary. The 10 point swing happened in the general election.
My prediction: Obama wins in Davis by 20 percent.
My current take on the Democratic race: Clinton needs to knock Obama out, tommorow. She needs a majority of the popular vote in at least 15 states. If she fails to do that, it looks like the Obama momentum will overtake her in the late primaries and he’ll be the nominee…
Neither will have enough delegates on Wednesday to take the nomination. However, if Senator Clinton does win 15 or more states, the headlines will be, “Clinton sweeps the nation,” and the Obama campaign will be irretrievably deflated.
“The repeated polling is increasingly confirming that Hillary will LOSE to McCain in the General Election and Barak WINS against McCain.”
Regardless of what the polls say in February, I think Hillary has a better chance to win in November than Obama does. I don’t think enough Democrats pay enough heed to the facts that:
1) Senator Obama has never run in a contested partisan election in his entire life. He’s not only inexperienced in national politics; he’s inexperienced running against any opposition in a general election.
2) While liberal Democrats have no problem with voting for a guy with a foreign sounding name, Joe Six Pack in middle America is not going to pull the lever for someone named Barack Hussein Obama.
3) In a time of war, Americans want to vote for a Commander-in-Chief who has a wealth of experience at the highest levels of government.
“And then there is the Tom Bradley factor.”
The Bradley factor doesn’t mean anything in Democratic primaries, where liberals and racial minorities make up a large part of the vote. Even in California in 1982, Tom Bradley took the expected percentage of the vote in the primary. The 10 point swing happened in the general election.
My prediction: Obama wins in Davis by 20 percent.
My current take on the Democratic race: Clinton needs to knock Obama out, tommorow. She needs a majority of the popular vote in at least 15 states. If she fails to do that, it looks like the Obama momentum will overtake her in the late primaries and he’ll be the nominee…
Neither will have enough delegates on Wednesday to take the nomination. However, if Senator Clinton does win 15 or more states, the headlines will be, “Clinton sweeps the nation,” and the Obama campaign will be irretrievably deflated.
“The repeated polling is increasingly confirming that Hillary will LOSE to McCain in the General Election and Barak WINS against McCain.”
Regardless of what the polls say in February, I think Hillary has a better chance to win in November than Obama does. I don’t think enough Democrats pay enough heed to the facts that:
1) Senator Obama has never run in a contested partisan election in his entire life. He’s not only inexperienced in national politics; he’s inexperienced running against any opposition in a general election.
2) While liberal Democrats have no problem with voting for a guy with a foreign sounding name, Joe Six Pack in middle America is not going to pull the lever for someone named Barack Hussein Obama.
3) In a time of war, Americans want to vote for a Commander-in-Chief who has a wealth of experience at the highest levels of government.
“And then there is the Tom Bradley factor.”
The Bradley factor doesn’t mean anything in Democratic primaries, where liberals and racial minorities make up a large part of the vote. Even in California in 1982, Tom Bradley took the expected percentage of the vote in the primary. The 10 point swing happened in the general election.
My prediction: Obama wins in Davis by 20 percent.
Nice ideas and sentiments, but not likely that either a black man or a woman named Clinton will carry enough red states in the general election. Sadly, I see another Republican administration coming. At least with McCain, we’re less likely to use and condone torture.
Nice ideas and sentiments, but not likely that either a black man or a woman named Clinton will carry enough red states in the general election. Sadly, I see another Republican administration coming. At least with McCain, we’re less likely to use and condone torture.
Nice ideas and sentiments, but not likely that either a black man or a woman named Clinton will carry enough red states in the general election. Sadly, I see another Republican administration coming. At least with McCain, we’re less likely to use and condone torture.
Nice ideas and sentiments, but not likely that either a black man or a woman named Clinton will carry enough red states in the general election. Sadly, I see another Republican administration coming. At least with McCain, we’re less likely to use and condone torture.
ugh– Just realized I’m still registered Republican but I want to vote for Obama in the primary. Do I have any options still left? Provisionary ballot? Thanks
ugh– Just realized I’m still registered Republican but I want to vote for Obama in the primary. Do I have any options still left? Provisionary ballot? Thanks
ugh– Just realized I’m still registered Republican but I want to vote for Obama in the primary. Do I have any options still left? Provisionary ballot? Thanks
ugh– Just realized I’m still registered Republican but I want to vote for Obama in the primary. Do I have any options still left? Provisionary ballot? Thanks
I have been firmly in the Hillary camp for at least the last two years, but Obama has been impressive enough that I am not currently as absolute in my commitment. The reasons have been his actions, coupled with 1) my reading Tom Friedman’s The World Is Flat last month and 2) David Brooks recent column in the New York Times (reprinted in the Enterprise) comparing Hillary and Obama.
As much as I support Hillary, I realistically don’t think she will ever make a transforming speech like JFK did at his Inaugural or with his Man on the Moon exhortation. I find I cannot ignore the fact that Obama is capable of a transforming speech like that.
The final influence is one of those good news / bad news situations. The good news is that I really like both Hillary and Obama, and will enthusiastically campaign for whichever one wins the nomination. More good news is that the Republicans appear to have settled on McCain, who I believe is far and away their highest quality candidate. The bad news is that I do think McCain is the one Republican who is capable of beating Hillary. So that concern adds to my waivering on my long term commitment to Hillary.
One of my concerns about Hillary is the “and Bill” factor. If you (the gereralized you) want the President of the US to be the CEO of the Country, then it is very clear to me that Bill was an outstanding CEO. High quality results are rarely produced by a single person, and as our CEO, Bill brought together many disparate forces to produce eight truly outstanding years . . . not perfect, but truly outstanding. That doesn’t diminish the contributions of all the other players (Republicans and Democrats alike), but it was his hand on the tiller.
On the other hand, if you want the President to be a role model in addition to doing his/her job, then even for this strongly pro-Clinton Democrat, Bill was problematic at best.
I really want (and expect) Hillary to be the CEO. I am very confident that she can do that, and do it well, but I am much less confident in Bill’s ability to step back out of the picture. Although the context of the comment was different, I couldn’t help but pause when I read the following words in George Packer’s outstanding article in the January 28 issue of the New Yorker magazine, “A Clinton associate put it this way to Carl Bernstein: ‘I’m not sure I want the circus back in town.'” If that feeling resonates throughout the electorate, then Hillary’s campaign will be known more for its role model characteristics than for its CEO potential.
With that said, my vote will go to Hillary.
The decision we will make tomorrow isn’t without its flaws, but it is a whole lot better than anything we have had in a long, long time.
I have been firmly in the Hillary camp for at least the last two years, but Obama has been impressive enough that I am not currently as absolute in my commitment. The reasons have been his actions, coupled with 1) my reading Tom Friedman’s The World Is Flat last month and 2) David Brooks recent column in the New York Times (reprinted in the Enterprise) comparing Hillary and Obama.
As much as I support Hillary, I realistically don’t think she will ever make a transforming speech like JFK did at his Inaugural or with his Man on the Moon exhortation. I find I cannot ignore the fact that Obama is capable of a transforming speech like that.
The final influence is one of those good news / bad news situations. The good news is that I really like both Hillary and Obama, and will enthusiastically campaign for whichever one wins the nomination. More good news is that the Republicans appear to have settled on McCain, who I believe is far and away their highest quality candidate. The bad news is that I do think McCain is the one Republican who is capable of beating Hillary. So that concern adds to my waivering on my long term commitment to Hillary.
One of my concerns about Hillary is the “and Bill” factor. If you (the gereralized you) want the President of the US to be the CEO of the Country, then it is very clear to me that Bill was an outstanding CEO. High quality results are rarely produced by a single person, and as our CEO, Bill brought together many disparate forces to produce eight truly outstanding years . . . not perfect, but truly outstanding. That doesn’t diminish the contributions of all the other players (Republicans and Democrats alike), but it was his hand on the tiller.
On the other hand, if you want the President to be a role model in addition to doing his/her job, then even for this strongly pro-Clinton Democrat, Bill was problematic at best.
I really want (and expect) Hillary to be the CEO. I am very confident that she can do that, and do it well, but I am much less confident in Bill’s ability to step back out of the picture. Although the context of the comment was different, I couldn’t help but pause when I read the following words in George Packer’s outstanding article in the January 28 issue of the New Yorker magazine, “A Clinton associate put it this way to Carl Bernstein: ‘I’m not sure I want the circus back in town.'” If that feeling resonates throughout the electorate, then Hillary’s campaign will be known more for its role model characteristics than for its CEO potential.
With that said, my vote will go to Hillary.
The decision we will make tomorrow isn’t without its flaws, but it is a whole lot better than anything we have had in a long, long time.
I have been firmly in the Hillary camp for at least the last two years, but Obama has been impressive enough that I am not currently as absolute in my commitment. The reasons have been his actions, coupled with 1) my reading Tom Friedman’s The World Is Flat last month and 2) David Brooks recent column in the New York Times (reprinted in the Enterprise) comparing Hillary and Obama.
As much as I support Hillary, I realistically don’t think she will ever make a transforming speech like JFK did at his Inaugural or with his Man on the Moon exhortation. I find I cannot ignore the fact that Obama is capable of a transforming speech like that.
The final influence is one of those good news / bad news situations. The good news is that I really like both Hillary and Obama, and will enthusiastically campaign for whichever one wins the nomination. More good news is that the Republicans appear to have settled on McCain, who I believe is far and away their highest quality candidate. The bad news is that I do think McCain is the one Republican who is capable of beating Hillary. So that concern adds to my waivering on my long term commitment to Hillary.
One of my concerns about Hillary is the “and Bill” factor. If you (the gereralized you) want the President of the US to be the CEO of the Country, then it is very clear to me that Bill was an outstanding CEO. High quality results are rarely produced by a single person, and as our CEO, Bill brought together many disparate forces to produce eight truly outstanding years . . . not perfect, but truly outstanding. That doesn’t diminish the contributions of all the other players (Republicans and Democrats alike), but it was his hand on the tiller.
On the other hand, if you want the President to be a role model in addition to doing his/her job, then even for this strongly pro-Clinton Democrat, Bill was problematic at best.
I really want (and expect) Hillary to be the CEO. I am very confident that she can do that, and do it well, but I am much less confident in Bill’s ability to step back out of the picture. Although the context of the comment was different, I couldn’t help but pause when I read the following words in George Packer’s outstanding article in the January 28 issue of the New Yorker magazine, “A Clinton associate put it this way to Carl Bernstein: ‘I’m not sure I want the circus back in town.'” If that feeling resonates throughout the electorate, then Hillary’s campaign will be known more for its role model characteristics than for its CEO potential.
With that said, my vote will go to Hillary.
The decision we will make tomorrow isn’t without its flaws, but it is a whole lot better than anything we have had in a long, long time.
I have been firmly in the Hillary camp for at least the last two years, but Obama has been impressive enough that I am not currently as absolute in my commitment. The reasons have been his actions, coupled with 1) my reading Tom Friedman’s The World Is Flat last month and 2) David Brooks recent column in the New York Times (reprinted in the Enterprise) comparing Hillary and Obama.
As much as I support Hillary, I realistically don’t think she will ever make a transforming speech like JFK did at his Inaugural or with his Man on the Moon exhortation. I find I cannot ignore the fact that Obama is capable of a transforming speech like that.
The final influence is one of those good news / bad news situations. The good news is that I really like both Hillary and Obama, and will enthusiastically campaign for whichever one wins the nomination. More good news is that the Republicans appear to have settled on McCain, who I believe is far and away their highest quality candidate. The bad news is that I do think McCain is the one Republican who is capable of beating Hillary. So that concern adds to my waivering on my long term commitment to Hillary.
One of my concerns about Hillary is the “and Bill” factor. If you (the gereralized you) want the President of the US to be the CEO of the Country, then it is very clear to me that Bill was an outstanding CEO. High quality results are rarely produced by a single person, and as our CEO, Bill brought together many disparate forces to produce eight truly outstanding years . . . not perfect, but truly outstanding. That doesn’t diminish the contributions of all the other players (Republicans and Democrats alike), but it was his hand on the tiller.
On the other hand, if you want the President to be a role model in addition to doing his/her job, then even for this strongly pro-Clinton Democrat, Bill was problematic at best.
I really want (and expect) Hillary to be the CEO. I am very confident that she can do that, and do it well, but I am much less confident in Bill’s ability to step back out of the picture. Although the context of the comment was different, I couldn’t help but pause when I read the following words in George Packer’s outstanding article in the January 28 issue of the New Yorker magazine, “A Clinton associate put it this way to Carl Bernstein: ‘I’m not sure I want the circus back in town.'” If that feeling resonates throughout the electorate, then Hillary’s campaign will be known more for its role model characteristics than for its CEO potential.
With that said, my vote will go to Hillary.
The decision we will make tomorrow isn’t without its flaws, but it is a whole lot better than anything we have had in a long, long time.
“…but not likely that either a black man or a woman named Clinton will carry enough red states in the general election.”
All the Dems need is one more state( Ohio will go blue this time as well as New Mexico(with Richardson as VP?)to be over the top with electoral votes. Obama is an almost slam-dunk Dem electoral win. Even Hillary would probably win but it is much less certain because of her inability to draw cross-over Republican and Independent voters. McCain would be the oldest person ever to be elected as president. If he picks a conservative running-mate, voters will understand that a conservative Republican will be just one McCain heart beat away from the presidency.
“…but not likely that either a black man or a woman named Clinton will carry enough red states in the general election.”
All the Dems need is one more state( Ohio will go blue this time as well as New Mexico(with Richardson as VP?)to be over the top with electoral votes. Obama is an almost slam-dunk Dem electoral win. Even Hillary would probably win but it is much less certain because of her inability to draw cross-over Republican and Independent voters. McCain would be the oldest person ever to be elected as president. If he picks a conservative running-mate, voters will understand that a conservative Republican will be just one McCain heart beat away from the presidency.
“…but not likely that either a black man or a woman named Clinton will carry enough red states in the general election.”
All the Dems need is one more state( Ohio will go blue this time as well as New Mexico(with Richardson as VP?)to be over the top with electoral votes. Obama is an almost slam-dunk Dem electoral win. Even Hillary would probably win but it is much less certain because of her inability to draw cross-over Republican and Independent voters. McCain would be the oldest person ever to be elected as president. If he picks a conservative running-mate, voters will understand that a conservative Republican will be just one McCain heart beat away from the presidency.
“…but not likely that either a black man or a woman named Clinton will carry enough red states in the general election.”
All the Dems need is one more state( Ohio will go blue this time as well as New Mexico(with Richardson as VP?)to be over the top with electoral votes. Obama is an almost slam-dunk Dem electoral win. Even Hillary would probably win but it is much less certain because of her inability to draw cross-over Republican and Independent voters. McCain would be the oldest person ever to be elected as president. If he picks a conservative running-mate, voters will understand that a conservative Republican will be just one McCain heart beat away from the presidency.
“Obama is an almost slam-dunk Dem electoral win. Even Hillary would probably win..”
I agree: the electoral college tilts very favorably towards the Democrats this time around. And Obama may even improve the Democrat vote totals in the South, which have been all but written off by Dem’s for decades.
Republicans will use the same playbook regardless of whether it’s Clinton or Obama. So the more inspiring candidate is the better choice to prevail in November.
IMO a race between McCain and Obama would be the triumph of decency over venality.
“Obama is an almost slam-dunk Dem electoral win. Even Hillary would probably win..”
I agree: the electoral college tilts very favorably towards the Democrats this time around. And Obama may even improve the Democrat vote totals in the South, which have been all but written off by Dem’s for decades.
Republicans will use the same playbook regardless of whether it’s Clinton or Obama. So the more inspiring candidate is the better choice to prevail in November.
IMO a race between McCain and Obama would be the triumph of decency over venality.
“Obama is an almost slam-dunk Dem electoral win. Even Hillary would probably win..”
I agree: the electoral college tilts very favorably towards the Democrats this time around. And Obama may even improve the Democrat vote totals in the South, which have been all but written off by Dem’s for decades.
Republicans will use the same playbook regardless of whether it’s Clinton or Obama. So the more inspiring candidate is the better choice to prevail in November.
IMO a race between McCain and Obama would be the triumph of decency over venality.
“Obama is an almost slam-dunk Dem electoral win. Even Hillary would probably win..”
I agree: the electoral college tilts very favorably towards the Democrats this time around. And Obama may even improve the Democrat vote totals in the South, which have been all but written off by Dem’s for decades.
Republicans will use the same playbook regardless of whether it’s Clinton or Obama. So the more inspiring candidate is the better choice to prevail in November.
IMO a race between McCain and Obama would be the triumph of decency over venality.
ALERT! ALERT!!
Everybody pay attention!
About your voting choices tomorrow:
The political parties decide whom they would like to have vote in their primaries. Period. My opinion doesn’t count. Your opinion doesnt count. Period.
So tomorrow — Decline-to-State voters can “crossover” to vote for Democrat candidates or for American Independent Party candidates.
That’s it!
No other crossovers are allowed. If you are anything other than a “Decline-to-State (“often referred to as ‘nonpartisan’) voter, you are stuck with the party you are registered in. Sorry. PLEASE don’t harrass the poll workers about this. They can’t change it.
Now – Everybody up for voting! The polls open at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. Be there or be square.
ALERT! ALERT!!
Everybody pay attention!
About your voting choices tomorrow:
The political parties decide whom they would like to have vote in their primaries. Period. My opinion doesn’t count. Your opinion doesnt count. Period.
So tomorrow — Decline-to-State voters can “crossover” to vote for Democrat candidates or for American Independent Party candidates.
That’s it!
No other crossovers are allowed. If you are anything other than a “Decline-to-State (“often referred to as ‘nonpartisan’) voter, you are stuck with the party you are registered in. Sorry. PLEASE don’t harrass the poll workers about this. They can’t change it.
Now – Everybody up for voting! The polls open at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. Be there or be square.
ALERT! ALERT!!
Everybody pay attention!
About your voting choices tomorrow:
The political parties decide whom they would like to have vote in their primaries. Period. My opinion doesn’t count. Your opinion doesnt count. Period.
So tomorrow — Decline-to-State voters can “crossover” to vote for Democrat candidates or for American Independent Party candidates.
That’s it!
No other crossovers are allowed. If you are anything other than a “Decline-to-State (“often referred to as ‘nonpartisan’) voter, you are stuck with the party you are registered in. Sorry. PLEASE don’t harrass the poll workers about this. They can’t change it.
Now – Everybody up for voting! The polls open at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. Be there or be square.
ALERT! ALERT!!
Everybody pay attention!
About your voting choices tomorrow:
The political parties decide whom they would like to have vote in their primaries. Period. My opinion doesn’t count. Your opinion doesnt count. Period.
So tomorrow — Decline-to-State voters can “crossover” to vote for Democrat candidates or for American Independent Party candidates.
That’s it!
No other crossovers are allowed. If you are anything other than a “Decline-to-State (“often referred to as ‘nonpartisan’) voter, you are stuck with the party you are registered in. Sorry. PLEASE don’t harrass the poll workers about this. They can’t change it.
Now – Everybody up for voting! The polls open at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. Be there or be square.
Thank you Freddie for the key information.
Thank you Freddie for the key information.
Thank you Freddie for the key information.
Thank you Freddie for the key information.
Vote Hillary.
Vote Hillary.
Vote Hillary.
Vote Hillary.
Hillary loses to McCain I believe.
Hillary loses to McCain I believe.
Hillary loses to McCain I believe.
Hillary loses to McCain I believe.
Dear Vanguard,
I was a “leaning towards Edwards supporter” but will be casting my ballot for Hillary Clinton.
I am including a letter I sent to Senator Ted Kennedy following the coronation of Barak Obama. It explains my feelings on this issue.
Dear Senator Kennedy,
I was one of the ones who felt deeply moved and inspired by your brother,JFK; I was 14 years old, back in 1960, when I went down to the train tracks in Tilton, N.H. and shook your brother, Jack’s, hand; to say the least, I was a passionate, YOUNG, Kennedy fan.
I have not been a supporter of Hilliary Clinton but today, I find myself deeply troubled and disappointed in yours and Caroline Kennedy’s staged coronation of Obama; I do not like the sentiment conveyed that Obama has “now been officially anointed by Democratic Royalty”, along with the other blue blood, John Kerry; I don’t think you (all) should have
endorsed Obama in the way you did; it leaves me cold and hopping mad.
Obama leaves many questions unanswered; inspiration and fluffy
rhetoric is not enough and heavens knows, the Democrats have bent over
backwards, spineless, for 8 years, all in the spirit of bipartianship;
and now I hear Obama making post, bi-partisan pronouncements that he
might entertain/appoint the likes of the California “boob-in-grabber”, Schwarzenegger, or the man who lied to the world, Colin Powell, or a Lugar who appears reasonable enough but voted for the Bush agenda every step of the way, in his administration; this kind of bi-partisan pandering is unacceptable and we can and must do better!
I guess, it all comes down to whether we buy that Obama is the only, one-of a- kind,inspirational leader you and others make him out to be. “Branding” and “authencity” are not the same thing, and he is no JFK to me.
Lots of love,
Katie Brown
Dear Vanguard,
I was a “leaning towards Edwards supporter” but will be casting my ballot for Hillary Clinton.
I am including a letter I sent to Senator Ted Kennedy following the coronation of Barak Obama. It explains my feelings on this issue.
Dear Senator Kennedy,
I was one of the ones who felt deeply moved and inspired by your brother,JFK; I was 14 years old, back in 1960, when I went down to the train tracks in Tilton, N.H. and shook your brother, Jack’s, hand; to say the least, I was a passionate, YOUNG, Kennedy fan.
I have not been a supporter of Hilliary Clinton but today, I find myself deeply troubled and disappointed in yours and Caroline Kennedy’s staged coronation of Obama; I do not like the sentiment conveyed that Obama has “now been officially anointed by Democratic Royalty”, along with the other blue blood, John Kerry; I don’t think you (all) should have
endorsed Obama in the way you did; it leaves me cold and hopping mad.
Obama leaves many questions unanswered; inspiration and fluffy
rhetoric is not enough and heavens knows, the Democrats have bent over
backwards, spineless, for 8 years, all in the spirit of bipartianship;
and now I hear Obama making post, bi-partisan pronouncements that he
might entertain/appoint the likes of the California “boob-in-grabber”, Schwarzenegger, or the man who lied to the world, Colin Powell, or a Lugar who appears reasonable enough but voted for the Bush agenda every step of the way, in his administration; this kind of bi-partisan pandering is unacceptable and we can and must do better!
I guess, it all comes down to whether we buy that Obama is the only, one-of a- kind,inspirational leader you and others make him out to be. “Branding” and “authencity” are not the same thing, and he is no JFK to me.
Lots of love,
Katie Brown
Dear Vanguard,
I was a “leaning towards Edwards supporter” but will be casting my ballot for Hillary Clinton.
I am including a letter I sent to Senator Ted Kennedy following the coronation of Barak Obama. It explains my feelings on this issue.
Dear Senator Kennedy,
I was one of the ones who felt deeply moved and inspired by your brother,JFK; I was 14 years old, back in 1960, when I went down to the train tracks in Tilton, N.H. and shook your brother, Jack’s, hand; to say the least, I was a passionate, YOUNG, Kennedy fan.
I have not been a supporter of Hilliary Clinton but today, I find myself deeply troubled and disappointed in yours and Caroline Kennedy’s staged coronation of Obama; I do not like the sentiment conveyed that Obama has “now been officially anointed by Democratic Royalty”, along with the other blue blood, John Kerry; I don’t think you (all) should have
endorsed Obama in the way you did; it leaves me cold and hopping mad.
Obama leaves many questions unanswered; inspiration and fluffy
rhetoric is not enough and heavens knows, the Democrats have bent over
backwards, spineless, for 8 years, all in the spirit of bipartianship;
and now I hear Obama making post, bi-partisan pronouncements that he
might entertain/appoint the likes of the California “boob-in-grabber”, Schwarzenegger, or the man who lied to the world, Colin Powell, or a Lugar who appears reasonable enough but voted for the Bush agenda every step of the way, in his administration; this kind of bi-partisan pandering is unacceptable and we can and must do better!
I guess, it all comes down to whether we buy that Obama is the only, one-of a- kind,inspirational leader you and others make him out to be. “Branding” and “authencity” are not the same thing, and he is no JFK to me.
Lots of love,
Katie Brown
Dear Vanguard,
I was a “leaning towards Edwards supporter” but will be casting my ballot for Hillary Clinton.
I am including a letter I sent to Senator Ted Kennedy following the coronation of Barak Obama. It explains my feelings on this issue.
Dear Senator Kennedy,
I was one of the ones who felt deeply moved and inspired by your brother,JFK; I was 14 years old, back in 1960, when I went down to the train tracks in Tilton, N.H. and shook your brother, Jack’s, hand; to say the least, I was a passionate, YOUNG, Kennedy fan.
I have not been a supporter of Hilliary Clinton but today, I find myself deeply troubled and disappointed in yours and Caroline Kennedy’s staged coronation of Obama; I do not like the sentiment conveyed that Obama has “now been officially anointed by Democratic Royalty”, along with the other blue blood, John Kerry; I don’t think you (all) should have
endorsed Obama in the way you did; it leaves me cold and hopping mad.
Obama leaves many questions unanswered; inspiration and fluffy
rhetoric is not enough and heavens knows, the Democrats have bent over
backwards, spineless, for 8 years, all in the spirit of bipartianship;
and now I hear Obama making post, bi-partisan pronouncements that he
might entertain/appoint the likes of the California “boob-in-grabber”, Schwarzenegger, or the man who lied to the world, Colin Powell, or a Lugar who appears reasonable enough but voted for the Bush agenda every step of the way, in his administration; this kind of bi-partisan pandering is unacceptable and we can and must do better!
I guess, it all comes down to whether we buy that Obama is the only, one-of a- kind,inspirational leader you and others make him out to be. “Branding” and “authencity” are not the same thing, and he is no JFK to me.
Lots of love,
Katie Brown
given that the 1st congressional district is one of the 5 delegate ones, the vote in yolo county could very well deliver that 5th delegate to one side or the other.
if you’re a democrat or decline to state’r, your vote will definitely matter. of course, if you’re a republican, it matters too, but the delegate math is a whole lot less weird (whoever wins the congressional district wins all the delegates, no proportional silliness)
given that the 1st congressional district is one of the 5 delegate ones, the vote in yolo county could very well deliver that 5th delegate to one side or the other.
if you’re a democrat or decline to state’r, your vote will definitely matter. of course, if you’re a republican, it matters too, but the delegate math is a whole lot less weird (whoever wins the congressional district wins all the delegates, no proportional silliness)
given that the 1st congressional district is one of the 5 delegate ones, the vote in yolo county could very well deliver that 5th delegate to one side or the other.
if you’re a democrat or decline to state’r, your vote will definitely matter. of course, if you’re a republican, it matters too, but the delegate math is a whole lot less weird (whoever wins the congressional district wins all the delegates, no proportional silliness)
given that the 1st congressional district is one of the 5 delegate ones, the vote in yolo county could very well deliver that 5th delegate to one side or the other.
if you’re a democrat or decline to state’r, your vote will definitely matter. of course, if you’re a republican, it matters too, but the delegate math is a whole lot less weird (whoever wins the congressional district wins all the delegates, no proportional silliness)
DON: “I agree: the electoral college tilts very favorably towards the Democrats this time around.”
Why? Are you basing that simply on current polls?
My feeling is that a lot could change between February, when both parties should know who their nominees are, and November, when we actually vote for president.
Of course, in California, nothing will change: the Democrat will win here. But in the so-called purple states, I have a feeling that the polls will go back and forth right up to the end.
DON: “I agree: the electoral college tilts very favorably towards the Democrats this time around.”
Why? Are you basing that simply on current polls?
My feeling is that a lot could change between February, when both parties should know who their nominees are, and November, when we actually vote for president.
Of course, in California, nothing will change: the Democrat will win here. But in the so-called purple states, I have a feeling that the polls will go back and forth right up to the end.
DON: “I agree: the electoral college tilts very favorably towards the Democrats this time around.”
Why? Are you basing that simply on current polls?
My feeling is that a lot could change between February, when both parties should know who their nominees are, and November, when we actually vote for president.
Of course, in California, nothing will change: the Democrat will win here. But in the so-called purple states, I have a feeling that the polls will go back and forth right up to the end.
DON: “I agree: the electoral college tilts very favorably towards the Democrats this time around.”
Why? Are you basing that simply on current polls?
My feeling is that a lot could change between February, when both parties should know who their nominees are, and November, when we actually vote for president.
Of course, in California, nothing will change: the Democrat will win here. But in the so-called purple states, I have a feeling that the polls will go back and forth right up to the end.
Polling revealed that US voters are far more reluctant to elect a man of McCain’s years for president than to elect a woman or non-white male. If elected, McCain would be 72 when he takes office and 80 by the end of his second term.
Polling revealed that US voters are far more reluctant to elect a man of McCain’s years for president than to elect a woman or non-white male. If elected, McCain would be 72 when he takes office and 80 by the end of his second term.
Polling revealed that US voters are far more reluctant to elect a man of McCain’s years for president than to elect a woman or non-white male. If elected, McCain would be 72 when he takes office and 80 by the end of his second term.
Polling revealed that US voters are far more reluctant to elect a man of McCain’s years for president than to elect a woman or non-white male. If elected, McCain would be 72 when he takes office and 80 by the end of his second term.
You can always count on the general election to get nasty in some way. Republican strategists obsess over this and prepare for it as if it were the Olypmics.
I am more confident in Hillary’s ability to respond to Republican attacks than Obama’s.
The Clintons also seem to have a pretty effective “tar baby” effect. The worse they get attacked the stronger their support gets.
If Hillary wins, I don’t think things will be dire v. McCain.
Re: the Tom Bradly effect — in the general election, I think there will be a lot of older independent and less-committed Republican women who, in the privacy of the voting booth, will decide that they would like to see a woman president in the White House before they die, if for no other reason, than to feel confident that society has advanced during their lifetimes.
I am not in 100% agreement w/ Hillary’s views, but I want to support a winner in the general election. I’m tired of being disappointed for 8 years.
Hillary may not be so eloquent a speaker, but GW Bush definitely is not, either.
Obama talks a good talk about unity, working together, and all, but I think Clinton has had more successes in reaching across the aisle in the Senate than has Obama.
I applaud Obama for making a great campaign of it, but I’m voting for Clinton.
You can always count on the general election to get nasty in some way. Republican strategists obsess over this and prepare for it as if it were the Olypmics.
I am more confident in Hillary’s ability to respond to Republican attacks than Obama’s.
The Clintons also seem to have a pretty effective “tar baby” effect. The worse they get attacked the stronger their support gets.
If Hillary wins, I don’t think things will be dire v. McCain.
Re: the Tom Bradly effect — in the general election, I think there will be a lot of older independent and less-committed Republican women who, in the privacy of the voting booth, will decide that they would like to see a woman president in the White House before they die, if for no other reason, than to feel confident that society has advanced during their lifetimes.
I am not in 100% agreement w/ Hillary’s views, but I want to support a winner in the general election. I’m tired of being disappointed for 8 years.
Hillary may not be so eloquent a speaker, but GW Bush definitely is not, either.
Obama talks a good talk about unity, working together, and all, but I think Clinton has had more successes in reaching across the aisle in the Senate than has Obama.
I applaud Obama for making a great campaign of it, but I’m voting for Clinton.
You can always count on the general election to get nasty in some way. Republican strategists obsess over this and prepare for it as if it were the Olypmics.
I am more confident in Hillary’s ability to respond to Republican attacks than Obama’s.
The Clintons also seem to have a pretty effective “tar baby” effect. The worse they get attacked the stronger their support gets.
If Hillary wins, I don’t think things will be dire v. McCain.
Re: the Tom Bradly effect — in the general election, I think there will be a lot of older independent and less-committed Republican women who, in the privacy of the voting booth, will decide that they would like to see a woman president in the White House before they die, if for no other reason, than to feel confident that society has advanced during their lifetimes.
I am not in 100% agreement w/ Hillary’s views, but I want to support a winner in the general election. I’m tired of being disappointed for 8 years.
Hillary may not be so eloquent a speaker, but GW Bush definitely is not, either.
Obama talks a good talk about unity, working together, and all, but I think Clinton has had more successes in reaching across the aisle in the Senate than has Obama.
I applaud Obama for making a great campaign of it, but I’m voting for Clinton.
You can always count on the general election to get nasty in some way. Republican strategists obsess over this and prepare for it as if it were the Olypmics.
I am more confident in Hillary’s ability to respond to Republican attacks than Obama’s.
The Clintons also seem to have a pretty effective “tar baby” effect. The worse they get attacked the stronger their support gets.
If Hillary wins, I don’t think things will be dire v. McCain.
Re: the Tom Bradly effect — in the general election, I think there will be a lot of older independent and less-committed Republican women who, in the privacy of the voting booth, will decide that they would like to see a woman president in the White House before they die, if for no other reason, than to feel confident that society has advanced during their lifetimes.
I am not in 100% agreement w/ Hillary’s views, but I want to support a winner in the general election. I’m tired of being disappointed for 8 years.
Hillary may not be so eloquent a speaker, but GW Bush definitely is not, either.
Obama talks a good talk about unity, working together, and all, but I think Clinton has had more successes in reaching across the aisle in the Senate than has Obama.
I applaud Obama for making a great campaign of it, but I’m voting for Clinton.
Rich,
In 2004, Bush beat Kerry by 34 votes in the electoral college. The generic “do you prefer a Democrat or a Republican” surveys have the Republicans at their lowest preference in over 20 years.
McCain’s appeal to independents might overcome that to some extent – unless Obama is the Dem candidate, since he also appeals to independents. Clinton is weaker, since her base of support is really just core Democrats, particularly older and union voters.
Regardless, either Democratic candidate is likely to win all of the states Kerry won last time. So all he or she has to do is pick up 34 electoral votes from some combination of these (The % shows the margin Bush won by in ’04):
Close Bush States (5-9.99%)
66 Electoral Votes
Arkansas (6) – 9%
Virginia (13) – 9%
Missouri (11) – 8%
Colorado (9) – 7%
Florida (27) – 5%
Really Close Bush States (4.99% or less)
37 Electoral Votes
Nevada (5) – 3%
Ohio (20) – 2%
New Hampshire (4) – 1%
There are a few states that Kerry carried by a narrow margin that the Republicans could try to pick off (% = the margin Kerry won by):
Iowa (7) – 1%
New Mexico (5) – 1%
Wisconsin (10) – 1%
Pennsylvania (21) – 2%
Michigan (17) – 3%
Minnesota (10) – 3%
Oregon (7) – 4%
I am doubtful about them carrying any of those.
All the other blue states Kerry carried by 7% or more.
Rich,
In 2004, Bush beat Kerry by 34 votes in the electoral college. The generic “do you prefer a Democrat or a Republican” surveys have the Republicans at their lowest preference in over 20 years.
McCain’s appeal to independents might overcome that to some extent – unless Obama is the Dem candidate, since he also appeals to independents. Clinton is weaker, since her base of support is really just core Democrats, particularly older and union voters.
Regardless, either Democratic candidate is likely to win all of the states Kerry won last time. So all he or she has to do is pick up 34 electoral votes from some combination of these (The % shows the margin Bush won by in ’04):
Close Bush States (5-9.99%)
66 Electoral Votes
Arkansas (6) – 9%
Virginia (13) – 9%
Missouri (11) – 8%
Colorado (9) – 7%
Florida (27) – 5%
Really Close Bush States (4.99% or less)
37 Electoral Votes
Nevada (5) – 3%
Ohio (20) – 2%
New Hampshire (4) – 1%
There are a few states that Kerry carried by a narrow margin that the Republicans could try to pick off (% = the margin Kerry won by):
Iowa (7) – 1%
New Mexico (5) – 1%
Wisconsin (10) – 1%
Pennsylvania (21) – 2%
Michigan (17) – 3%
Minnesota (10) – 3%
Oregon (7) – 4%
I am doubtful about them carrying any of those.
All the other blue states Kerry carried by 7% or more.
Rich,
In 2004, Bush beat Kerry by 34 votes in the electoral college. The generic “do you prefer a Democrat or a Republican” surveys have the Republicans at their lowest preference in over 20 years.
McCain’s appeal to independents might overcome that to some extent – unless Obama is the Dem candidate, since he also appeals to independents. Clinton is weaker, since her base of support is really just core Democrats, particularly older and union voters.
Regardless, either Democratic candidate is likely to win all of the states Kerry won last time. So all he or she has to do is pick up 34 electoral votes from some combination of these (The % shows the margin Bush won by in ’04):
Close Bush States (5-9.99%)
66 Electoral Votes
Arkansas (6) – 9%
Virginia (13) – 9%
Missouri (11) – 8%
Colorado (9) – 7%
Florida (27) – 5%
Really Close Bush States (4.99% or less)
37 Electoral Votes
Nevada (5) – 3%
Ohio (20) – 2%
New Hampshire (4) – 1%
There are a few states that Kerry carried by a narrow margin that the Republicans could try to pick off (% = the margin Kerry won by):
Iowa (7) – 1%
New Mexico (5) – 1%
Wisconsin (10) – 1%
Pennsylvania (21) – 2%
Michigan (17) – 3%
Minnesota (10) – 3%
Oregon (7) – 4%
I am doubtful about them carrying any of those.
All the other blue states Kerry carried by 7% or more.
Rich,
In 2004, Bush beat Kerry by 34 votes in the electoral college. The generic “do you prefer a Democrat or a Republican” surveys have the Republicans at their lowest preference in over 20 years.
McCain’s appeal to independents might overcome that to some extent – unless Obama is the Dem candidate, since he also appeals to independents. Clinton is weaker, since her base of support is really just core Democrats, particularly older and union voters.
Regardless, either Democratic candidate is likely to win all of the states Kerry won last time. So all he or she has to do is pick up 34 electoral votes from some combination of these (The % shows the margin Bush won by in ’04):
Close Bush States (5-9.99%)
66 Electoral Votes
Arkansas (6) – 9%
Virginia (13) – 9%
Missouri (11) – 8%
Colorado (9) – 7%
Florida (27) – 5%
Really Close Bush States (4.99% or less)
37 Electoral Votes
Nevada (5) – 3%
Ohio (20) – 2%
New Hampshire (4) – 1%
There are a few states that Kerry carried by a narrow margin that the Republicans could try to pick off (% = the margin Kerry won by):
Iowa (7) – 1%
New Mexico (5) – 1%
Wisconsin (10) – 1%
Pennsylvania (21) – 2%
Michigan (17) – 3%
Minnesota (10) – 3%
Oregon (7) – 4%
I am doubtful about them carrying any of those.
All the other blue states Kerry carried by 7% or more.
The 37 should be 29 in the second group of states….
The 37 should be 29 in the second group of states….
The 37 should be 29 in the second group of states….
The 37 should be 29 in the second group of states….
…and, of course, all he or she actually has to do is pick up 18 votes from some combination of those, not 34.
…and, of course, all he or she actually has to do is pick up 18 votes from some combination of those, not 34.
…and, of course, all he or she actually has to do is pick up 18 votes from some combination of those, not 34.
…and, of course, all he or she actually has to do is pick up 18 votes from some combination of those, not 34.
Here is Larry Sabato’s analysis:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=FRC2007082301
Here is Larry Sabato’s analysis:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=FRC2007082301
Here is Larry Sabato’s analysis:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=FRC2007082301
Here is Larry Sabato’s analysis:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=FRC2007082301
I am a former John Edwards supporter and am voting for Hillary Clinton today.Although Barack Obama can deliver a speech(he has an excellent writer by all accounts),which inspires some, he has not been asked the hard questions. Not so Hillary- she has been dissected, ridiculed and bashed. She continues to deliver as evidenced by her stunning performance in the last debate.If elected,she will surround herself with competent, qualified people.Obama has frquently talked about his bipartisan approach and mentioned Arnold Schwarzenegger, Colin Powell and Richard Lugar as possible cabinet appointments. Good grief! haven`t we had enough of the Republicans? That potential makes me cringe!Obama speeches are saturated with talk of”hope”. That`s wonderful- but many of us have always had hope, even in the darkest of times.As Congresswoman Maxine Waters recently suggested, we don`t need more hope- we need help!
I am a former John Edwards supporter and am voting for Hillary Clinton today.Although Barack Obama can deliver a speech(he has an excellent writer by all accounts),which inspires some, he has not been asked the hard questions. Not so Hillary- she has been dissected, ridiculed and bashed. She continues to deliver as evidenced by her stunning performance in the last debate.If elected,she will surround herself with competent, qualified people.Obama has frquently talked about his bipartisan approach and mentioned Arnold Schwarzenegger, Colin Powell and Richard Lugar as possible cabinet appointments. Good grief! haven`t we had enough of the Republicans? That potential makes me cringe!Obama speeches are saturated with talk of”hope”. That`s wonderful- but many of us have always had hope, even in the darkest of times.As Congresswoman Maxine Waters recently suggested, we don`t need more hope- we need help!
I am a former John Edwards supporter and am voting for Hillary Clinton today.Although Barack Obama can deliver a speech(he has an excellent writer by all accounts),which inspires some, he has not been asked the hard questions. Not so Hillary- she has been dissected, ridiculed and bashed. She continues to deliver as evidenced by her stunning performance in the last debate.If elected,she will surround herself with competent, qualified people.Obama has frquently talked about his bipartisan approach and mentioned Arnold Schwarzenegger, Colin Powell and Richard Lugar as possible cabinet appointments. Good grief! haven`t we had enough of the Republicans? That potential makes me cringe!Obama speeches are saturated with talk of”hope”. That`s wonderful- but many of us have always had hope, even in the darkest of times.As Congresswoman Maxine Waters recently suggested, we don`t need more hope- we need help!
I am a former John Edwards supporter and am voting for Hillary Clinton today.Although Barack Obama can deliver a speech(he has an excellent writer by all accounts),which inspires some, he has not been asked the hard questions. Not so Hillary- she has been dissected, ridiculed and bashed. She continues to deliver as evidenced by her stunning performance in the last debate.If elected,she will surround herself with competent, qualified people.Obama has frquently talked about his bipartisan approach and mentioned Arnold Schwarzenegger, Colin Powell and Richard Lugar as possible cabinet appointments. Good grief! haven`t we had enough of the Republicans? That potential makes me cringe!Obama speeches are saturated with talk of”hope”. That`s wonderful- but many of us have always had hope, even in the darkest of times.As Congresswoman Maxine Waters recently suggested, we don`t need more hope- we need help!
Excellent analysis, Don…
If Obama is the Dem candidate for president,young voters will go to the polls en mass for the first time and
carry the day in November for president Barack Obama. Republican donors,being Republican, are tight-fisted with their own money and are not giving to the Republican candidates. They have read the political handwriting-on-the-wall.
Excellent analysis, Don…
If Obama is the Dem candidate for president,young voters will go to the polls en mass for the first time and
carry the day in November for president Barack Obama. Republican donors,being Republican, are tight-fisted with their own money and are not giving to the Republican candidates. They have read the political handwriting-on-the-wall.
Excellent analysis, Don…
If Obama is the Dem candidate for president,young voters will go to the polls en mass for the first time and
carry the day in November for president Barack Obama. Republican donors,being Republican, are tight-fisted with their own money and are not giving to the Republican candidates. They have read the political handwriting-on-the-wall.
Excellent analysis, Don…
If Obama is the Dem candidate for president,young voters will go to the polls en mass for the first time and
carry the day in November for president Barack Obama. Republican donors,being Republican, are tight-fisted with their own money and are not giving to the Republican candidates. They have read the political handwriting-on-the-wall.
“After eight years of bitter partisan divide with George Bush”
Yes, a partisan divide created all by Bush himself. Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barbara Boxer had no part in divisive politics whatsoever. Their repeated attacks on Bush were actually a positive way of reaching out to the other side.
Anyhow, I think Obama is the best Democrat on the ticket so far. He sounds nicer than the others. But that is the extent of it. He sounds nice, but simply mouthing platitudes about “transcending race” does not impress me, nor does that equal policy proposals to fix problems.
Where does Barak intend to come up with the $ to implement universal health care? How does he intend to implement universal health care?
Second, Barak/Clinton/Edwards are real good about mouthing opposition to the war w/o addressing all of the carnage that will be created by such a proposal.
Furthermore, someone who does not have confidence in our own armies’ ability to win is not someone I overall consider “hopeful” or “optimistic.” That is doom and gloom.
“After eight years of bitter partisan divide with George Bush”
Yes, a partisan divide created all by Bush himself. Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barbara Boxer had no part in divisive politics whatsoever. Their repeated attacks on Bush were actually a positive way of reaching out to the other side.
Anyhow, I think Obama is the best Democrat on the ticket so far. He sounds nicer than the others. But that is the extent of it. He sounds nice, but simply mouthing platitudes about “transcending race” does not impress me, nor does that equal policy proposals to fix problems.
Where does Barak intend to come up with the $ to implement universal health care? How does he intend to implement universal health care?
Second, Barak/Clinton/Edwards are real good about mouthing opposition to the war w/o addressing all of the carnage that will be created by such a proposal.
Furthermore, someone who does not have confidence in our own armies’ ability to win is not someone I overall consider “hopeful” or “optimistic.” That is doom and gloom.
“After eight years of bitter partisan divide with George Bush”
Yes, a partisan divide created all by Bush himself. Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barbara Boxer had no part in divisive politics whatsoever. Their repeated attacks on Bush were actually a positive way of reaching out to the other side.
Anyhow, I think Obama is the best Democrat on the ticket so far. He sounds nicer than the others. But that is the extent of it. He sounds nice, but simply mouthing platitudes about “transcending race” does not impress me, nor does that equal policy proposals to fix problems.
Where does Barak intend to come up with the $ to implement universal health care? How does he intend to implement universal health care?
Second, Barak/Clinton/Edwards are real good about mouthing opposition to the war w/o addressing all of the carnage that will be created by such a proposal.
Furthermore, someone who does not have confidence in our own armies’ ability to win is not someone I overall consider “hopeful” or “optimistic.” That is doom and gloom.
“After eight years of bitter partisan divide with George Bush”
Yes, a partisan divide created all by Bush himself. Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barbara Boxer had no part in divisive politics whatsoever. Their repeated attacks on Bush were actually a positive way of reaching out to the other side.
Anyhow, I think Obama is the best Democrat on the ticket so far. He sounds nicer than the others. But that is the extent of it. He sounds nice, but simply mouthing platitudes about “transcending race” does not impress me, nor does that equal policy proposals to fix problems.
Where does Barak intend to come up with the $ to implement universal health care? How does he intend to implement universal health care?
Second, Barak/Clinton/Edwards are real good about mouthing opposition to the war w/o addressing all of the carnage that will be created by such a proposal.
Furthermore, someone who does not have confidence in our own armies’ ability to win is not someone I overall consider “hopeful” or “optimistic.” That is doom and gloom.
Obama for president, Hillary for VP. Bill would go back to his Foundation in NYC to do his “philanthropic” work, perhaps he can hang out with his buddy Tony Blair who also is looking for something to do. Being the VP’s consort would be of no interest to Bill Clinton. VP Hillary could then be “her own person” and not be in the shadow of her uncontrollable, ego-driven husband.
Obama for president, Hillary for VP. Bill would go back to his Foundation in NYC to do his “philanthropic” work, perhaps he can hang out with his buddy Tony Blair who also is looking for something to do. Being the VP’s consort would be of no interest to Bill Clinton. VP Hillary could then be “her own person” and not be in the shadow of her uncontrollable, ego-driven husband.
Obama for president, Hillary for VP. Bill would go back to his Foundation in NYC to do his “philanthropic” work, perhaps he can hang out with his buddy Tony Blair who also is looking for something to do. Being the VP’s consort would be of no interest to Bill Clinton. VP Hillary could then be “her own person” and not be in the shadow of her uncontrollable, ego-driven husband.
Obama for president, Hillary for VP. Bill would go back to his Foundation in NYC to do his “philanthropic” work, perhaps he can hang out with his buddy Tony Blair who also is looking for something to do. Being the VP’s consort would be of no interest to Bill Clinton. VP Hillary could then be “her own person” and not be in the shadow of her uncontrollable, ego-driven husband.