Thread: Obama's Popularity Doesn't Help w/ Electoral College

Much has been made of Barack Obama’s potential to put traditionally Republican states in play for the upcoming November election. Yet, there is a strong distinction between garnering new votes and securing votes in the most crucial states. It may well be true that Obama can narrow the margins of the 2004 election in states such as Indiana (60%-40%), Nebraska (66%-33%), and North Carolina (56%-44%), but he cannot stake claim to the electability crown unless he wins these states. We are not playing horseshoes or tossing hand grenades; a 51%-49% loss does not garner Obama a single electoral vote.
As much as it may pain us, we must grant Hillary Clinton credit for realizing that she fairs best against John McCain in the states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Polls must be taken with a grain of salt this early in the campaign, but the averages compiled by RealClearPolitics are revealing: Hillary is ahead of McCain by 5% in both Ohio and Pennsylvania and pulls even with him in Florida. Obama, the likely Democratic nominee, is down by 2.6% in Ohio, deadlocked in Pennsylvania, and is soundly defeated in Florida by 11.7%.
Since 1900, no successful presidential candidate outside of John F. Kennedy has ever captured the White House without winning at least two of these three states. 1960 stands as a anomaly, as JFK mustered a win in Pennsylvania, but lost both Florida and Ohio to future president Richard Nixon. The three states currently hold the key to a total of 68 electoral votes, 47 of which decided the last two elections (Florida-27 and Ohio-20). Where does Obama go, then, if he is not victorious in at least one or two of these contests?

If Clinton has a better chance of winning Penn., Ohio, and Florida in the general election, why would Democratic Super Delegates vote for Obama? While Obama is extremely popular in urban areas and college campuses, he will struggle in states with diverse populations.

Are Democrats concerned that the electoral college will hurt the Obama campaign? Is the Electoral College Racist?

A head to head poll also came out today showing Obama v McCain as dead even and Clinton over McCain by 9 points.

Originally Posted by freckles

A head to head poll also came out today showing Obama v McCain as dead even and Clinton over McCain by 9 points.

Those polls are racist and a product of the neo-con media, don't listen to them.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

If Clinton has a better chance of winning Penn., Ohio, and Florida in the general election, why would Democratic Super Delegates vote for Obama? While Obama is extremely popular in urban areas and college campuses, he will struggle in states with diverse populations.

Are Democrats concerned that the electoral college will hurt the Obama campaign? Is the Electoral College Racist?

Cry's of racism and rioting ????

Its very possible the Dem's have opened a can of worms that could lead to bloodshed .

Lets face it the only black people that will accept anything less than an Obama presidency at this point are ones that would normally vote Republican .

All three of them.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

If Clinton has a better chance of winning Penn., Ohio, and Florida in the general election, why would Democratic Super Delegates vote for Obama? While Obama is extremely popular in urban areas and college campuses, he will struggle in states with diverse populations.

Are Democrats concerned that the electoral college will hurt the Obama campaign? Is the Electoral College Racist?

Because if the Democrat Stupor Delegates hand the nomination off to Hillary without a visible advantage in total vote count, they're going to piss of their captive and tame negros, and if their darkies get really pissed off, they might not go to the polls at all, and might consider growing up and leaving the Demcorat Party completely.

If the Democrats had a firmer grasp on the wetback vote they might not care. At this time it would be a disaster for them.

Without the black vote in Floriduh or Ohio or Pennsylvania, the Red Queen won't be coming anywhere near McCain's votes, even after all the Americans in those states decide to stay home rather than vote for him.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Because if the Democrat Stupor Delegates hand the nomination off to Hillary without a visible advantage in total vote count, they're going to piss of their captive and tame negros, and if their darkies get really pissed off, they might not go to the polls at all, and might consider growing up and leaving the Demcorat Party completely.

If the Democrats had a firmer grasp on the wetback vote they might not care. At this time it would be a disaster for them.

Without the black vote in Floriduh or Ohio or Pennsylvania, the Red Queen won't be coming anywhere near McCain's votes, even after all the Americans in those states decide to stay home rather than vote for him.

So, because a large minority within the Democratic Party will not vote for anyone other than Obama, because he's a black man, they have to nominate a black man? That is just bizarre. I bet Howard Dean is trying to figure out how to get the Protestant Evangelicals into the fold, they might be easier to deal with than the national black vote.

"Stupor delegates" :laughing:

I find it odd that somehow it's not OK to talk about race (unless, of course, you *are* black). I mean... there are very strong racial politics going on here. In Pennsylvania, exit polls showed Obama winning 96% of the black male vote. (There have been one-party Communist "elections" that were closer than that.)

I understand that blacks have a pretty tightly-knit subculture within America, and that many blacks would be excited about having a successful black man making a very viable run at the Presidency. But I'm a little worried at the almost total lack of dissent here -- 96% has moved beyond "strong support of a minority" and more into something like a cult-like blindness.

Black voters would be incredibly foolish, in event Clinton manages to fight her way successfully to the nomination, to think that McCain would be a preferable alternative.