Originally Posted by ShawnJ
Not bloody likely, mate!
Really. Well first, in my analysis I assumed he'd win them. But NY without Hillary is not a guarantee for him. Either is NJ, where there are tons of working class dems.
Originally Posted by Flounder
I have to ask. What in the world is your basis for this certainty?
PA is a bastion of moderate, working class and older voters. It is a custom made state for Hillary and McCain. Obama spent 3X as much as she did and still lost by 10 points. Republicans in PA tend to be moderate, especially in the suburbs...as do Dems. In other words, the Dems in PA are not Obama Dems. They will cross for McCain.
Obama has almost no chance in FL as well, due to it's older population. Unless of course you think towns like W. Palm Beach are going to vote for Obama.
OH is quite similar to PA in terms of demographic. It's more conservative than PA actually, so it's certainly no better for him.
Originally Posted by addabox
The trouble with your electoral map, SDW, is that it's binary. By using the "all or nothing" two color model, it appears as if Republicans have this overwhelming advantage in "safe" states.
It's an all or nothing system, so you know.
However, and as you probably know, a finer grained map that shades into purple, depending on proportionate voting patterns, gives a clearer picture: the country was pretty evenly divided, and Bush won via the "51%" model that Rove was so fond of: drive your base to the polls with whatever red meat seems expedient, suppress the other side by whatever means necessary.
Obama doesn't have to pick up that many votes to carry a lot of those "red" states, and the climate for Republicans in general, and McCain in particular, is much, much grimmer than in '04. The midterms were a sign of that, and things have only gotten worse.
He won't pick up those votes because Republicans will not cross for Obama, but some moderate dems will cross for McCain. McCain slaughters Obama in getting independents.
Iraq and the economy. You think those are net positives for McCain? You think they will have improved, come November?
No, they are net negatives. But the issue is one of choice. We've already heard that voters will not be focusing on Iraq as much as the economy. And McCain really can't be blamed for the economy. It will come down to what each candidate proposes on the economy once the general campaign is underway. If Obama has pegged as someone that will raise taxes and McCain is supporting further cuts to stimulate (while also railing against pork barrel spending), the issue may go net neutral.
Do you think how Americans voted in the last election is a reliable guide to how they'll vote in the next?
Yeah, actually I really do.
You've been suckered by the bombast of the Rovian Republican Party, who all along has acted as if they had this overwhelming mandate from a deeply conservative country, with "liberals" eking out the occasional win from their coastal redoubts.
Prepare to be dismayed.
That's the thing, adda. The Democrats didn't win in 2006 because people agreed with their politics. They won because of the war, and because the Republicans stopped acting like Republicans. They were pissed off, and rightly so in many respects. But, the fact of the matter is we live in an overall right of center country...in other words a more conservative than liberal country.