1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New running primaries thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by sportschick, Mar 26, 2008.

  1. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    What about Ohio and Pennsylvania? Whoever wins 2 out of 3 in FL, OH and PA will be the next president. Obama lost OH and PA when it was still "ON"
     
  2. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    McCain's winning Florida and Obama's winning Pennsylvania. I think that was going to be true no matter who won the nominating fights. Giuliani or Romney could carry Florida. Hillary or Edwards could carry PA.

    Ohio's the actual tossup.

    But Obama has a lot of ways to win that don't require him to win Ohio.

    Meaning the two-of-threee in three big swing states theory really doesn't hold water. But even if I grant it, it still comes down to not much of an argument, because, for instance, if the superdelegates were to move en masse to Hillary tomorrow, she wouldn't have a shot in hell at winning Ohio anyway. And we both know why.
     
  3. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    I'll admit ignorance here. If it was McCain-Hillary, why couldn't she win Ohio?
     
  4. spinning27

    spinning27 New Member

    Why bother to have primaries in any other states then?
     
  5. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Because the black community will be so pissed they'll stay home. A Dem can't possibly win without the black vote. Not possible.
     
  6. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Not in Ohio, they can't.

    And a big chunk of the cracker vote she got in the primary she'd never get in the general.
     
  7. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    For shits and giggles.
     
  8. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    I don't agree that she wouldn't get the cracker vote. The Clinton brand plays well with those voters. I don't think McCain appeals to those voters the way Bush did.
     
  9. Pope, you've fallen for a Clinton logical fallacy. Winning a state in the primary means nothing as far as how that state will go in the general. Clinton crushed Obama in the Oklahoma primary. Even if she were the nominee, there's no way she'd beat McCain in OK. The same is true of many states.
     
  10. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    In most states, you are right. But Ohio and Pennsylvania are traditional general election battleground states. Doing better in those states means something. I'm not saying it is a guarantee that Obama will lose those states. Versus McCain, he will be the favorite to win Penn. and Ohio will be 2004-level competitive. Because Ohio will be so competitive, Obama's weakness with Hillary's "cracker" voters could be a defining difference.
     
  11. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Could be. But the mood of this country heading into November -- and our perspectives on each candidate -- will likely be very different then than it is now.

    Could be better for Obama, could be worse. But I don't think we know what the election's going to be like ... until we get there.
     
  12. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    I can agree completely with that. I don't think we have a real grasp of how this campaign is going to play out until the conventions. This summer will certainly be interesting.

    Here is what the electoral map looked like in late May 2004.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page