dajafi wrote:As of right now, the map next week looks very bad for Obama:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
He'll win Illinois, of course, and maybe Georgia, Alabama, Kansas and Colorado. And he's actually even in Connecticut and a bit ahead in Idaho--if you credit a poll from six months ago.
But Clinton will win the big two (NY, CA), New Jersey, Arkansas, Massachusetts (gotta figure that 43 point lead will hold up even with Ted Kennedy's endorsement), Minnesota, Arizona, and likely most of the rest.
VoxOrion wrote:Rasmussen has McCain beating both Clinton and Obama nationally.
But this is all before the agism, sexism, and racism gets into overdrive.
dajafi wrote:As of right now, the map next week looks very bad for Obama:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
He'll win Illinois, of course, and maybe Georgia, Alabama, Kansas and Colorado. And he's actually even in Connecticut and a bit ahead in Idaho--if you credit a poll from six months ago.
But Clinton will win the big two (NY, CA), New Jersey, Arkansas, Massachusetts (gotta figure that 43 point lead will hold up even with Ted Kennedy's endorsement), Minnesota, Arizona, and likely most of the rest.
The question is, one, whether Obama will stay close enough in delegates to seriously extend the race beyond that, and two, whether the media will treat it as a non-decisive Clinton win on points or THE DEVASTATING KNOCKOUT BLOW THAT CLINCHES THE NOMINATION!
Meanwhile, he's now just six points back in the national Gallup poll. After a year in which many of us dismissed the national poll as meaningless and looked at the close state races in Iowa and NH and SC, this is a little ironic to say the least.
dajafi wrote:VoxOrion wrote:Rasmussen has McCain beating both Clinton and Obama nationally.
But this is all before the agism, sexism, and racism gets into overdrive.
You disdain all of the above, right?
CMD wrote:Looking at that electoral map, what accounted for Hilary's jump in Massachusetts over just a 10 day span? She went from 32 to 59 percent in a period of time where Obama was gaining momentum. I have a hard time reading much into some of these polls...or maybe I am just missing something...
Maybe that was supposed to be 29 instead of a 59? Certainly makes a huge difference...
thephan wrote:pacino's posting is one of the more important things revealed in weeks.
Calvinball wrote:Pacino was right.
pacino wrote:CMD wrote:Looking at that electoral map, what accounted for Hilary's jump in Massachusetts over just a 10 day span? She went from 32 to 59 percent in a period of time where Obama was gaining momentum. I have a hard time reading much into some of these polls...or maybe I am just missing something...
Maybe that was supposed to be 29 instead of a 59? Certainly makes a huge difference...
lots of racists in Boston? I don't know, that makes no sense.
mpmcgraw wrote:I still have yet to hear a real reason anyone has for liking hillary clinton.
thephan wrote:pacino's posting is one of the more important things revealed in weeks.
Calvinball wrote:Pacino was right.
His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again - a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.
Does America really want to go through all that once again?
It will - if Sen. Clinton becomes president.