What do you think of the Argument From The Down-Ticket? The reason why Clinton critics criticize the big-state thing is that they feel that it is poor party-building and a strategy, essentially, of retreat and long term neglect of state parties and so on.

So many of those using the argument about down-ticket have endorsed the new 48-state strategy that I find it hard to take seriously (not you, Mandos, but some of the more famous proponents of it). And, of course, you have to win the state or do extremely well there to help and in many of these states, Obama won’t win. He’s not going to carry South Carolina, even with a large AA turnout, and remember those AAs have been put into gerrymandered districts that probably already have a Democratic representative.

I think the best thing we can do for down ticket is what we’re currently doing, which is running primaries in all of these states so that voters get registered and databases created. I don’t think we can expect any presidential candidate to change red states to blue for anyone but him- or herself. Sure, there might be a few coattails, but to me the 50-state strategy really means is running good local races in all congressional districts. All politics is local, as the saying goes.

I don’t think having a presidential candidate contesting Idaho or Nebraska is going to get anything out of it but less time and money to spend in states he or she might actually win.

Aren’t a lot of things tied up in the presidential election? Unfortunately, in our media environment, I don’t think all politics are so local anymore. A local candidate in a state in which the national media is not paying attention is at a serious disadvantage.

I agree re the 48-state-strategy. It’s ridiculous on principle. But the strategic outcome depends on how much you think the primary disenfranchisement is going to have an effect on the general. The 48-state strategy people are saying, not in these words but by implication, that they’re faced with a 48 state strategy with Obama or a 15-state (or whatever) strategy with Clinton, and they’ll take the 48-state strategy because Clinton is return to old strategic thinking.

I rather hope that that ISN’T the case and that if she were to win, the experience in the primaries would lead to an expanded effort in less likely states, but that’s all hypothetical at this point

That was fun. It thinks that my “48” needs a Bible link.

Gotta fix that with the upgrade (coming!).

Meanwhile, if you’re an HTML weenie, through an EMPTY span element into the “The” and that will defeat the pattern recognizer.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I think the Bible link is highly amusing.

Clinton would not win Ohio even with a ravaged economy. Ohio is one place where the GOP would use Clinton to motive voters to get out and vote “anyone but Clinton”.

They both look in the margin of error to me.

Mandos raises a good question. Essentially should the possible benefit of a candidate that has big coattails be taken into account when deciding the nominee. It’s not what I chose to focus on in my post, but it is certainly something the superdelegates will consider when making their decision.

Unfortunately, there is little evidence when it comes to who has coattails and who doesn’t. I have only seen one analysis of the coattail effect. That analysis found that Obama voters were about 10% less likely to vote for other Democrats down ticket than Clinton voters. If people have other evidence, I’d be happy to see it. However, a lot of the claims are anecdotal at best. For the time being (until I see more evidence otherwise), I’m going to assume there isn’t a significant advantage for Clinton or Obama. If this is a valid assumption, then the question becomes one of visibility (more time spent in a state, therefore more coverage).

Looking at the states in play, I’m going to focus on the different states they will be in. Obama has to win more states, there’s more to talk about with him.

Obama would be spending more time in the traditionally blue states of MA, NH, and NJ. In these states there are about seven Republicans up for election (rough estimate given the time). Chief among them is NH’s Sen. Sununu (who is already looking weak against former Gov. Shaheen). The rest are members of the House delegation from NJ (the entire MA and NH delegations are already Democrats).

He would also spend more time in the traditionally red states of ND, NE, CO, NC, and SC. BDBlue already pointed out the issue with SC (and, I also believe NC). In NE, an active Presidential campaign could very well help Scott Kleeb’s candidacy for Senate. Colorado is the only other red state where we might see similar help with Udall’s race, and also Tancredo’s old seat and against Marilyn Musgrave (please forgive my short shrift on these, but I haven’t had time to look into the races to see who is running, and what the current polling is).

Florida, as I stated above, may not even be an issue if Crist is McCain’s running mate. If not, there is the possibility of coattails in the House races (Republicans hold about 2/3 of the seats now).

For Clinton the states she’ll be spending more time in are IA, MO, and TN. Missouri has Republicans in just over half of its House seats (and I’d love to see Roy Blunt join his son in retirement). Iowa has just under half. In Tennessee half the House delegation is Republicans and Lamar Alexander is up for reelection.

So if news time dedicated to covering the Presidential races does reap rewards, one would expect Obama to have the upper hand since it will be necessary for him to campaign in states with more incumbent Republicans (I’m focusing on incumbency due to the large, >95%, retention rate). But Mandos also points out that much of our news (and thus our elections), is becoming less local and more national. This effect would tend to downplay that benefit.

That should all be taken into account. The superdelegates will have to decide if (as it now looks) starting off at a disadvantage in the Presidential race is worth the shot at doing better in the House and Senate. I would expect this to be given more weight if it looks like a 60 seat majority in the Senate is possible, but since Democrats already have majorities in both houses I don’t think the superdelegates will give it as much weight.

Show Obama losing and Clinton winning, right? Sure, both races are close, but the polls still show Clinton doing better. Moreover, they show both candidates rising versus McCain, so I’m not sure how that supports your contention that Clinton will be weak in Ohio.

As for your theory of the GOP using “anyone but Clinton” to bolster McCain to win, surely the people being polled already know who Hillary Clinton is. Moreover, Obama has been working the anti-Hillary vote pretty hard (witness his latest efforts in Pennsylvania to register independents and Republicans) and the Republican contest was pretty much over and yet Hillary still comfortably beat Obama in Ohio.

If you have some empirical evidence showing Clinton is weaker than Obama in Ohio, I’d love to see it. Right now, she looks stronger than Obama in Ohio based on polls and the primary results (she won the parts of Ohio that Gore and Kerry lost in the GE), although I agree that Obama also appears to have a decent shot at winning the state.

I agree re the 48-state-strategy. It’s ridiculous on principle. But the strategic outcome depends on how much you think the primary disenfranchisement is going to have an effect on the general.

At least one Michigan Democrat feels it would be a deal killer.

It also loses us the moral high ground in any recount situation.

please understand what i’m about to say in no way is a critique of this excellent post. welcome and thanks for your efforts, joc.

however, i’m really, really struggling with the notion that ~50% of “potential voters” or “the people” or whatever are that gung ho for mccain. i just can’t believe that. perhaps these numbers reflect the minds of people who’ve not seen him up close, or a lot, recently. but when people do…folks, he’s so old and tired he makes me feel older and more tired just looking at him. let’s recall his most recent gaffes- my goddess, he can’t even remember the difference bw shia and sunni! and he’s supposed to be “strong” and “experienced” on foreign policy issues? feh.

i know i’m ever and foolishly hopeful, and i base way too much of my opinions on anecdotes and personal experiences. but i have yet to meet a mccain supporter who isn’t a member of the SCLM or Village. there are no signs here, he didn’t do well in the primary at all, and even woman haters and racists aren’t exactly out in force for him, so far as i can tell.

i dunno. i look at those maps, and i think to myself, it just can’t be true that things are that close. again, i’m probably a fool and wrong, but i no longer trust any polls.

foil moment: because i think the more these polls are propagated, the more they reinforce a perception that certain “results” from certain machines are “valid.”

The long-winded post that I wrote in response to Mandos has disappeared into the ether, and does not seem likely to return. The short-winded version is this:

Mandos makes an excellent point as to the down-ballot races, and the superdelegates need to take this into consideration. It’s not what I was focusing on in my post, but it is certainly something they will need to look at.

Unfortunately, the only evidence I have seen looking at the coattails effect is this article (registration might be required) from the Dallas Morning news. The up-shot of it is that Clinton voters were about 10% more likely to vote in down ballot races than Obama voters. There are claims that Obama would have coattails where Clinton wouldn’t, but I haven’t seen any evidence (anecdotal claims, yes, evidence, no). So given that I wouldn’t say that there is a great coattail effect (either way). I’m happy to re-judge as evidence comes available (if you know of some, please post it).

This leaves it to an effect of increased coverage due to an active Presidential campaign in the state. Obama benefits by virtue of having to compete in more states in order to win the Presidency. Kleeb in NE and Udall in CO could benefit, as could the candidates for Republican-held House seats in NJ and CO. MA already has a full Democratic delegation, Shaheen is already looking like she’s going to win in NH, and as BDBlue pointed out SC (and NC) already are fairly well set due to their districting. Clinton could help out in the House races in IA, MO, and TN (and maybe make the Republicans spend a bit more in Alexander’s race).

But as Mandos also notes, the news is becoming less local and more national. So this benefit is ameliorated somewhat because of this.

The superdelegates will consider this when making their decisions, but since there are already Democratic majorities in the House and Senate I don’t know how much of a concern it will be. The only thing that might change that is if the Democrats think it is the only way to a 60 seat Senate majority.

Not so much. But anti-female or anti-black? Quite a lot. Nixon was a smart cookie, Republicans since have stayed true to the bigots and they will get that vote again this time. A lot of Indies, and more than a few Democrats, are going to have a rough time with the concept of a woman or a black sitting in the Oval Office, being the Leader of the Free World and all that powerful stuff.

This will be a tough fight for Dems with either candidate, because close to half the country (not just white men) would rather see a nearly-dead Old White Man as president than either a female or a black. We are not the enlightened nation we like to say we are when talking to the pollsters.

yours or mine?

Washington State will have a rematch between Dino Rossi and Governor Gregore. Many locals thought the election was taken in the THIRD recount in King County. Rossi is a very popular candidate and may offer some up ballot help. Will need to watch this one.

Conn., Governor Rell is very popular after that other Republican governor resigned. Her re-election and a lack of the Clinton name on the ballot can be a problem in this state.

New Jersey without CLinton’s name on the ballot becomes a problem…state was ’blue’ in 2004 by less than 5%.

Florida’s is ’red’ with either candidate after the snub by the DNC over the primary dates.

Tennessee, NC, and Missouri are ’red’ either way, with Missouri being the closest of the three.

South Carolina might be a break through with Barry Obama running.

Nebraska, no questions there, always ’red’. NH loves McCain.

I find it fascinating about Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan being in play. I’d say Michigan goes ’red’ and the others ’blue’. And Coleman wins re-election in Minnesota.

Pennsylvania will be ’blue’ only with Clinton’s name on the ballot. Colorado only with Obama running.

I think with either Democrat this will be a lot closer than many Democrats thought a year ago. With Clinton, she might just go down with a 274 to 264 count. With Obama, it looks much worse.

If we elected a black man Gov of Virginia in 1989 we can surely elect a black or female pres in 2008. Are you suggesting that the country has not caught up to where Virginia was in 1989????

I can tell you from experience that racists will vote for a black and mysogynists will vote for a women, you just have to have the right candidate and the right circumstances.

joc: Thanks for the post. On the ether thing, your comment triggered the spam filter, for reasons of its own, and it was queued. I just despammed it.

bringiton: I have problems with framing McCain, or anyone, as old — I feel old myself, these days, I think we’ve got plenty of readers who are no spring chickens, and the OFB calls me old and in the way on a regular basis as part of Bareback Andy’s mischievous and destructive Millenial frame.

Now, if you wanted to develop a frame that McCain can’t perform…. Or has this weird high voice… Or slathers himself with skin cream because, for some reason, he doesn’t want to go out in the sun…. Or smaller than expected (don’t we think of him as tall?) or possibly even shrunken… Well, that would work. Yeah, I could riff on that. Heh.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I was pretty sure I had hit the post button, but as time went by I began to doubt it. It’s good to know I’m not going crazy (at least not yet).

Doesn’t get any easier, Lambert, as the years go by; won’t do to let yourself feel old just yet.

Could be wrong but at 61 I’m as old as anyone I’ve seen mention their age here and I’m willing to bet more beat up by self-abuse than most. Still to me McCain is Old in the not-good, doddering tottering early senility way that Reagan had but the Republicans sold as Aw Shucks charming. They’ll try the same with this tool.

Americans don’t like “old” so it semed a useful descriptor to hang around his wizened neck, but I sure wouldn’t want to offend by choosing the wrong detrimental epithet. There are apparently more rules to invective journalism than I had appreciated.

Hoary John has a ring, but younger people will be puzzled by it and miss the double entendre entirely. Sigh. Back to the Nickname Mines, digging for millstones.

… but a question of effect; CD and I just had a long discussion about this, so the comment doesn’t come at random. And trust me, you’ll enjoy inventing and propagating tropes that — making an assumption here — emasculate McCain. It’s a game the whole family can play! If, making a second assumption, we manage to frame the general as a question of whether McCain can handle a mature woman, I think we’ll do just fine. Just fine. (On policy, the phrase “policy arm candy” just came to mind. Yes, I’m going to enjoy this….)

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Because if it’s what CD wants, well, then…that settles it.

She threatened me, with… Well, I don’t want to say what she threatened me with. I’m not sure McCain has seen one. It might do him some good….

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Ack, I just now realize someone else highlighted this article; that’s what I get for leaving the computer and not refreshing

Consider this article from the Dallas Morning News, “Many Obama voters ignored other Texas primary races,” which shows most Obama supporters are for Obama as a personality, not a partisan:

Obama supporters were more likely to vote in the presidential race and then skip the other contests than Clinton supporters, who tended to continue voting down the ballot, a Dallas Morning News analysis finds.

More than 80 percent of Democratic voters in the Texas counties where Mrs. Clinton had her largest victory margins went on to vote in the U.S. Senate race, the leading statewide contest on the ballot after the presidential race. By contrast, only 71 percent of voters in Mr. Obama’s strongest counties did.

In Dallas County, where Mr. Obama got nearly two-thirds of the vote, the falloff was nearly 30 percent.

we’ve seen that everywhere—and it goes along with that whole “Democrat for a day” stuff.

……..I am so damn sick of the ’Boyz on the Blogz’ specifically Bowers making the argument that The Magic Man was gonna load all us weak, sniveling progressives onto his carpet and fly us to friggin’ victory.

Utter horse shit and now you’ve give me some facts!

If you’ve listened to Newt Gingrich and other McSame backers lately you can see how they will run and guess what? They are going after the ’Do-Nothing’ Democratic Congress….

In the long run this can work to progressives benefit. If Miss Nancy and ’SellOut’ Reid’s SuperMajority fails to arrive as predicted by the idiot Emmanuel the Dem caucus will start looking to change course. First course change I’d make would be throwing Miss Nancy and her ’LeaderSheep’ over the side.

A. Citizen

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

…the thing about the down-ticket races is that Clinton will probably win, but not win big and won’t have much in the way of coattails—and she won’t lose big if she does lose. At this point, I don’t see Obama winning big either — and there is a strong possibility that he’ll go down in flames, and take other Dems with him.

How do we know that those weren’t Republicans messing with the election? I noticed in Travis County that in many precincts, the highest vote count was for the Presidential race. After that, the highest vote was for Tax-Assessor/Collector where the choice was between the incumbent and an ex state Rep that is gay (who got soundly defeated). Other positions had about 20-25% less votes cast.
Seems kind of odd to me.

no?

no?

they used up anti-gay marriage last time.

We don’t know that it wasn’t Republicans messing around. That’s why it would be nice if people in other states had done similar analyses.

It isn’t a big help for the Obama crowd, however, if that could be the answer. If about 10% of their vote was people messing around, the 51-47 victory Clinton got, should have actually been closer to 55-43. I don’t think it can be the answer, since even 4% of the electorate constitutes over 120,000 voters. That’s a lot of people to come and vote for a candidate without an organized campaign to do so. Rush Limbaugh tried to organize such an effort, but he was trying to get people to vote for Clinton. I haven’t heard of any others. Obama won Republicans 53-46, so it looks like Limbaugh failed.

Also, if you look at the quote from the Dallas Morning News article shown a few comments before, you’ll see that the higher levels of ’retention’ from Presidential vote to Senate were “more than 80%,” which I take to mean at least 15% less votes cast. Your 20-25% range seems like it might be kind of average in that light.

no? We don’t know about that in every state where there were open primaries and/or caucuses where they didn’t check.

For citing purposes, here’s the article that dismisses the myth that Limbaugh or Republicans in general gamed TX in order to have an effect on who won the state primary. One can easily infer then that they also had no real effect on the down-ticket voting.

The major effect Republicans have had in our primaries is help Obama with the popular vote. That should be our concern, considering Clinton needs major help to be considered our rightful nominee.

Obama polls about even with Hillary. That despite the fact that he’s a relative newcomer with a media who compare him to Jebus, while Hill has been pilloried by left, right and in between for 16 years. Kerry was polling better than Obama—or about the same—during equivalent times in the process four years ago. Kerry was a war hero who didn’t have an anti-American pastors/spiritual mentor (or at least his rhetoric can be construed thusly). Nor did Kerry have a long term relationship with a convicted felon who had slums in his Senate district.

Obama folks keep saying that the more people know him, the more people like Obama. That would be great if the polls haven’t shown consistently lower favorability numbers. Obama goes down in a heroically embarrassing fashion and hurts the long term prospects of the progressive movement since he’s running an anti-progressive Unity campaign rather than staking out clear ideological differences between the parties. Heck, he’s got his people believing that it was, in fact, Hillary Clinton who ordered troops into Iraq.

in the General Election and the other is running on ignoring those and bringing us all together?

I think the unity one loses.

That should all be taken into account. The superdelegates will have to decide if (as it now looks) starting off at a disadvantage in the Presidential race is worth the shot at doing better in the House and Senate. I would expect this to be given more weight if it looks like a 60 seat majority in the Senate is possible, but since Democrats already have majorities in both houses I don’t think the superdelegates will give it as much weight.

But the other side that the superdelegates will have to consider *is* the “stolen” feeling of the party activist base if the superdelegates “vote against” a pledged delegate victory. Just to bring up your original point. Remember this has also turned into a vote on the topdownociousness of HRC’s campaign.

That effect too may cause downticket problems. The reason why is for the same reason that the national media makes politics less local. It was through the Dean campaign, if you take anything from Kos diaries in that era at all, that many current (D) activists in neglected state parties ended up there at all.

“Superdelegates” should get shirts with a big Superman S *and* be obliged to wear them in Denver in order to vote.

i think.

and I think that’s a more neutral term.

I’m having a hard time with that Underoos concept, I’m afraid. Just the picture in my mind.

Re: the feelings of the election being stolen, there’s a case to be made for that, I suppose, if you believe that the automatic (super) delegates aren’t supposed to do the job that The Rules say they are supposed to do, but a new one that the Obama campaign invented for them especially so that Obama could win. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

There’s also MI/FL fiasco, with two big states being disenfranched, and Obama putting it to the other big states that didn’t vote for him with a margin of victory from undemocratic caucuses and non-base voters, all with the help of a press that’s totally in the tank for him. And then having the Kool-A-Listers tell us to lay back and enjoy it while we’re being smeared as racists and dealing with humongous doses of misogny from the OFB really does not help matters. Couples therapy, anyone?

Stolen is as stolen does. My Unity Pony is still on back order.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

that’s it, pretty much…esp those who say that Supers should do one thing, but when it comes to them, do the opposite.

But the other side that the superdelegates will have to consider *is* the “stolen” feeling of the party activist base if the superdelegates “vote against” a pledged delegate victory.

2025 delegates are needed for a victory. Neither candidate will have that total prior to the convention.

That is a tie, and the “automatic” delegates will be required to break the tie.

And that’s why Hillary should quit immediately.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

2025 delegates are needed for a victory. Neither candidate will have that total prior to the convention.

That is a tie, and the “automatic” delegates will be required to break the tie.

Sure. No disagreement certainly from me that the procedure permits—-maybe even requires, according to the spirit of the procedure, which is to allow corrective action for the betterment of the party by the Wise Elders, such as they are—-automatic delegates to vote the way they want, regardless of the popular vote and pledged delegate count.

What I am saying is one factor that automatic delegates will have to take into account is the money and feet on the ground, much of which comes from the passionate Obama supporters, or so it seems. Making that threat is at the root of the “I won’t vote for Clinton if she wins” position that some of them are taking. It’s a threat that might even be a real one, or at least it may be reflected in later enthusiasm level.

That I suspect is part of the reason why the party is sacrificing MI and FL, in the belief that they can get them back later via a Good Ground Game or at least not turn off now-influential activist pools.

My preference for Clinton is based on the fact that Obama is not sufficiently partisan, or attempts to de-emphasize partisanship, and I don’t like that at all. But some people are banking on enthusiasm itself as being the value of Obama.

In a nutshell, the point is that while instadelegates (I like this better than automatic delegates) can vote for whom they want, there are also procedurally quite legitimate consequences for them to oppose the Kossacks.

They could make collector’s cups for each SD (or ID or AD…whatever).

I still have a Muppets Take Manhattan Burger King glass around here, somewherez. An-i-maaaaaal!

This delegate rules issue bothers me.

Many Obama supporters often claim that Senator Clinton wants to change the rules (in the middle of the game - grr - this is not marbles) or has broken or is breaking rules in the Democratic nomination process.

Honestly - when has Senator Clinton broken a nomination rule? Has she advocated breaking a nomination rule in the future?

No

In Michigan and Florida, there was an agreement (Okay, call it a rule, if you want) that the Democratic contenders would not campaign in those states. Senator Clinton did campaign.

Yes, Senator Clinton kept her name on the ballot in Michigan while Senator Obama chose to take his off. There was no rule requiring either of them to take their names off the ballot.

Senator Clinton won both Michigan and Florida, but issues in the process have been used to diminish her victories. In an attempt to rectify them Senator Clinton has worked to have re-do’s. Obama has worked against. Not very Unifying…

Senator Clinton is often chastised for mentioning the fact that she won the primary votes (yes, such as they were) in Michigan and Florida. There is no rule against that. In fact, that’s strong politics - and more importantly, maybe (just maybe) the voters in those two states are listening - and even if their votes are not accepted at the Democratic convention, they might want their votes to at least be recognized by the candidate.

Senator Clinton has not suggested breaking any rules in seating the Michigan and Florida delegates at the convention. The rules allow for such so long as it passes the credentials committee. That’s the rule!

Finally, soliciting Super (Automatic or whatever the name one wants to use for the undesignated delegates) Delagates for a vote is absolutely within the convention rules.

It seems crazy to me that the Clinton campaign is being painted as somehow working to win out-of-bounds.

Just the opposite. The campaign is working like crazy to win - within the rules. And if Senator Clinton can do it with all that’s gone on - just relish in the thought of what she could accomplish in office.

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority… . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

Submitted by BDBlue on Sun, 2008-03-23 15:27.
Show Obama losing and Clinton winning, right? Sure, both races are close, but the polls still show Clinton doing better. Moreover, they show both candidates rising versus McCain, so I’m not sure how that supports your contention that Clinton will be weak in Ohio.

As for your theory of the GOP using “anyone but Clinton” to bolster McCain to win, surely the people being polled already know who Hillary Clinton is. Moreover, Obama has been working the anti-Hillary vote pretty hard (witness his latest efforts in Pennsylvania to register independents and Republicans) and the Republican contest was pretty much over and yet Hillary still comfortably beat Obama in Ohio.

If you have some empirical evidence showing Clinton is weaker than Obama in Ohio, I’d love to see it. Right now, she looks stronger than Obama in Ohio based on polls and the primary results (she won the parts of Ohio that Gore and Kerry lost in the GE), although I agree that Obama also appears to have a decent shot at winning the state.

I’m not saying Obama is any better than Clinton in Ohio. I am saying that current polling is a wash and anyone, McCain, Clinton, or Obama are all within the margin of polling error. I am saying that Clinton +6 Obama -7 is total crap and the implication of McCain getting a 13 point bump against Obama is not sound.

See when you say so and so polls here or there. That is assuming whoever picked up the phone is equally likely voter. What I am saying is that if Clinton is on the ballot in Ohio, the GOP will be able to mobilize massive amounts of GOP voters to make sure she doesn’t win. They won’t even advertise McCain, they’ll just show attack ads. And it will work. Ohio GOP voters will show up just to cast a vote against Hillary.

I’m not saying Obama has a better chance and there isn’t some way to do the same, but I know it for a fact with Hillary. And don’t you dare start mentioning which counties voted strong for Hillary. Let me say the elections are not reflective of Dem choices or general voters in Ohio. There was massive crossover voting and probably some good old fashioned ballot box stuffing. If people ever learned the truth about the joke of Ohio’s insider election system….

Anyways, what I’m saying is that Hillary is not +13 against McCain over Obama. Not a chance.

Well said on the rules rant, Shane-oh.

But I don’t think you understand that The Obama Rules apply not merely to media coverage, but to all rules. Rule 1 is that all rules shall be construed in a manner favorable to Obama!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

but I know it for a fact with Hillary.