Obama is in Trouble... Do the Math

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   
The entire Democratic convention seemed geared towards appealing to the Democratic base, not the independents or swing voters who will determine the election.

So I decided to check some stats from the last election and now I understand why. And I also know now why Obama is focusing hard on Pennsylvania and Michigan.

In 2004, Kerry won Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by 3%, 3%, 3%, and 1% respectively. These are the states where white, middle-class, blue collar workers are going to decide the election. If just 12% of Hillary supporters defect and vote for McCain in these states, Obama may lose all four.

I.e., if you begin by estimating the the Democratic vote was equally divided between Hillary and Obama, that means roughly 25% of the voters are Hillary supporters and 25% are Obama supporters. If 12% of the Hillary voters vote for McCain, that will take 3% of the vote away from Obama, or the exact margin Kerry won by in 2004 in PA, MN, and MI.

And if McCain selects Romney as his running mate, he is almost certain to pull in even more votes from Michigan and maybe even Minnesota.

In other words, winning over the "bitter" Clinton voters is the key to this election.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by jamie83]




posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
The fact that he even has to win over the "bitter" Clinton voters just belies their intelligence, in my opinion.

How childish can you get?

Boohoo your candidate wasn't nominated, now you're going to systemically ruin everything for your entire party because your ego was butthurt.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by davion
 


Yes, but it is a very real consideration. Look at the years of Bush bashing as a fashion statement under the "stole the election twice". This even before he had a chance to screw anything up the first term.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by davion
The fact that he even has to win over the "bitter" Clinton voters just belies their intelligence, in my opinion.

How childish can you get?

Boohoo your candidate wasn't nominated, now you're going to systemically ruin everything for your entire party because your ego was butthurt.


these types of statements are sad to see, because voters have the right to vote for anyone they want, or vote for no one at all

why do you think everyone has to tow the party line all the time? me personally, i wish we did away with political partys altogeather, and just had canidates, and just voted
no political parties involved would be a nice, refreshing change

look at what the party has done to you
your mindset thinks purely in a left vs right paradigm
and then you talk down on a "block of voters" because they dont wanna vote the way u want them to

its a real shame indeed it is

thats why we should seriously get rid of all political parties and just let the people vote for canidates
that way people will have to find a more decent, logical reason to vote for a particular person, because they can no longer hide in the ignorance that is "towing the party line"



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by davion
The fact that he even has to win over the "bitter" Clinton voters just belies their intelligence, in my opinion.

How childish can you get?

Boohoo your candidate wasn't nominated, now you're going to systemically ruin everything for your entire party because your ego was butthurt.


Your comments are typical of the arrogance that's pervasive in the Obama campaign, which starts at the top and works its way down.

So if somebody doesn't support Obama they are not intelligent? Give me a break. Did you ever consider that people have good reasons not to support Obama based on his thin experience and left-leaning policy proposals?

And guess what? The election isn't about "your party," it's about what's best for the country. A lot of Democrats I know believe McCain as POTUS would be far better for the U.S. than Obama.

And now, just to put the exclamation point on this subject, McCain has named Palin as his V.P. choice. Brilliant strategic move. All he needs is for 12% of the Clinton supporters to vote for him in PA and Obama has no chance to win.

I will predict right now that exit polls in November are going to show around 20% of Clinton supporters voted for McCain.

Like I said, Obama's prospects for winning are in deep trouble.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I still think the key to Obama winning the election is getting those who don't vote to vote. Republicans always vote. Thanks for the math.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Check out these comments about McCain's choice for VP, Sarah Palin on Hugh Hewitt's website (Comments about McCains VP Choice). I'm pleasantly surprised at what I'm reading. I'd say Obama has quite a bit to be worried about, especially after people get to know Sarah Palin.



[edit on 29-8-2008 by sos37]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by davion
The fact that he even has to win over the "bitter" Clinton voters just belies their intelligence, in my opinion.

How childish can you get?

Boohoo your candidate wasn't nominated, now you're going to systemically ruin everything for your entire party because your ego was butthurt.


these types of statements are sad to see, because voters have the right to vote for anyone they want, or vote for no one at all

why do you think everyone has to tow the party line all the time? me personally, i wish we did away with political partys altogeather, and just had canidates, and just voted
no political parties involved would be a nice, refreshing change

look at what the party has done to you
your mindset thinks purely in a left vs right paradigm
and then you talk down on a "block of voters" because they dont wanna vote the way u want them to

its a real shame indeed it is

thats why we should seriously get rid of all political parties and just let the people vote for canidates
that way people will have to find a more decent, logical reason to vote for a particular person, because they can no longer hide in the ignorance that is "towing the party line"


Then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and instead of playing armchair politics actually do something about it. You see a lot of people making claims that the government has pulled the wool over the eyes of the American public with the two party system, but what the hell are you going to do about it other than post disparaging remarks about the system while you still go out and vote for the same good ole' boys yourself?



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
Your comments are typical of the arrogance that's pervasive in the Obama campaign, which starts at the top and works its way down.

So if somebody doesn't support Obama they are not intelligent? Give me a break. Did you ever consider that people have good reasons not to support Obama based on his thin experience and left-leaning policy proposals?


So then what was your implication of "bitter" Clinton supporters? You're flip-flopping more than McCain. So you're all for calling them bitter but if anyone says their bitter they are ignorant? What

I don't understand the logic behind supporting a Democrat like Clinton, being rah-rah-rah for her ideals and against McCain, and then once Clinton falls by the wayside suddenly McCain's ideals seem so much better even though they are in complete opposition to what Clinton's goals were that you originally agreed with. She's still apart of a group that generally has the same outlook when it comes to the way things should be handled.

I call them how I see them and that's being childish.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by davion]

[edit on 29-8-2008 by davion]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by davion

So then what was your implication of "bitter" Clinton supporters? You're flip-flopping more than McCain. So you're all for calling them bitter but if anyone says their bitter they are ignorant? What


The "bitter" comment was in reference to Barry O's infamous remarks about why Pennsylvania voters weren't flocking to him like they flocked to Clinton. He is going to be defeated by his own words. The "bitter" voters he referred to do not like him. In fact, it's more than that. They are not neutral towards him. They can't stand his type, which is arrogant, condescending, and dismissive of them.




I don't understand the logic behind supporting a Democrat like Clinton, being rah-rah-rah for her ideals and against McCain, and then once Clinton falls by the wayside suddenly McCain's ideals seem so much better even though they are in complete opposition to what Clinton's goals were that you originally agreed with.

I call them how I see them and that's being childish.


It's very simple to understand. McCain is experienced, strong on defense, and consistently pro American. Obama is none of those things.

Obama's goal is to disarm America. Obama is inexperienced. Obama has consistently ridiculed and derided not only America as a country, but Americans as well. We drive SUVs, we eat what we want, we cling to our religion, we don't like people who don't look like we do, etc., etc., etc.

What is childish is expecting people to fall in lock step behind Obama and then insult them when they don't.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
It's very simple to understand. McCain is experienced, strong on defense, and consistently pro American. Obama is none of those things.

Obama's goal is to disarm America. Obama is inexperienced. Obama has consistently ridiculed and derided not only America as a country, but Americans as well. We drive SUVs, we eat what we want, we cling to our religion, we don't like people who don't look like we do, etc., etc., etc.

What is childish is expecting people to fall in lock step behind Obama and then insult them when they don't.


If that's the case then why weren't Clinton's supporters drumming for McCain in the first place? Oh that's right because they lost the General Election.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I also find it absolutely adorable that you are now defending Clinton's supporters, mainly because they are up in the air at the moment and can go to either side of this election, but I am sure you and many others were attempting to spit fire at the Clinton camp when she was still in the running.

Now that her supporters actually might turn this election in one of two directions suddenly it's "not very nice" to slam them.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by davion]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by davion
 



Now that her supporters actually might turn this election in one of two directions suddenly it's "not very nice" to slam them.


24 hours ago - they were saying the same thing about some Obama supporters


Hypocrisy should be the new slogan of the RNC

One word, you can even put a period at the end...



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   
I took your advice and did the math.

More precisely I looked it up.


www.usaelectionpolls.com...

The national tracking polls have Obama up by an average of 6%. Gallup has him up 8% while Rasmussen Reports has him up 4%.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by davion

If that's the case then why weren't Clinton's supporters drumming for McCain in the first place? Oh that's right because they lost the General Election.


Because Clinton supporters thought Clinton was the best choice. Now that the choice is between McCain and Obama, many Clinton supporters think McCain is the best choice.

What Obama supporters don't seem to get is how anybody can NOT vote for Obama. Wake up. A lot of people just don't like him.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberbian
I took your advice and did the math.

More precisely I looked it up.


www.usaelectionpolls.com...

The national tracking polls have Obama up by an average of 6%. Gallup has him up 8% while Rasmussen Reports has him up 4%.


You did the wrong math.

The national polls mean nothing. Kerry was way ahead in 2004 too.

The election is decided by the Electoral College. Obama could very well win the popular vote and lose the election, just like Clinton did in the primaries.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Jamie,

ElectoralVote.com, which uses daily poll data, calls the race (if it were held today) Obama 278 McCain 247.

Now, I'm not a big fan of day-to-day polls, but if we look at a snapshot of today and give credence to them for a moment, it appears McCain's a bit in trouble not Obama. No? The math seems to be leaning possibly in the opposite direction.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Ok do the math, but the numbers don't count!

I get it. I don't buy it for a minute, but I get it.

Do it yourself reality, just avert your eyes from any reality which disagrees with your preferred perception.


How is that different from self deception?





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join