This sounds reasonable.

But Hillary has proved she can win in vital swing states. What chance does Obama have to win Ohio or PA in November if he cannot even manage to win his own party primary? We don't even know how he would do in other swing states like MI and FL because of the crackpot rules of the DNC. His appeal among white blue collar Dems is very low. That is a group that would not vote for most of the potential GOP nominees, but would certainly choose McCain over Obama.

The Dem big-wigs must know this - unless they are so used to being in charge and basking in the hysterical worship of the media that they no longer care what is actually happening.

Hillary Clinton did not have a blow-out victory, but the breakdown of the numbers indicate it was highly significant. It does not bode well for Obama.

On the other hand, it is true that if she receives the nomination at this point through some backroom dealing, it will be perceived as "theft".

Not an encouraging choice.

Not for the first time am I happy I am not a Democrat.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

I don't think either one can beat McCain but Hillary has a much better chance. Here are four reasons that Obama, if nominated, will lose to McCain:

1) He is an emphatic liberal. In fact, Obama is the most liberal senator in the USA, even left of Kennedy or Kerry! Liberals have a terrible record in Presidential elections (ie..McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry) . Moderates are preferred (Clinton).

2) He is married to an angry, bitter woman. Calling America "downright mean" along with her Princeton thesis are all going to be played to the hilt. Americans really do not like anger.

3) His pastor and mentor is a racist. Coastal Liberals do not seem to care that Rev Jeremiah Wright is a hate mongering racist, but the regular people - "the folks"- in the fly-over states, they do. This will be a lodestone on Obama's neck and when the general election starts after the convention Voters will be constantly reminded of his allegiance to Wright ala the 04 swift boater's.

4) He maintains friendships with unrepentant terrorists (Wm. Ayers). This is just starting to gain traction with the mainstream media but rest assured it will loom large in the general election. This combined with the previous 3 items will all combine to bring down Obama.

__________________
I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."
-- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008

I was shocked to read that 13% of white voters said race mattered in their vote. And of that 13%, only 54% would vote for Obama against McCain. The poll didn't say whether they would stay home or vote republican. But if 13% of white voters admitted to someone's face that race is a factor in their vote, how many more must there be who really vote based on race but would never admit as much to a pollster?

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

Where did you see this? I'm not that surprised by the numbers tbh especially considering the population of The South.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Alex, when this nominating process started, I viewed Obama with wistful longing, pretty much resigning myself to a Clinton nomination. (I had no idea who the Republican was going to be.) Obama has pleasantly surprised me, not with his ideas, which I already knew and liked, but with how well and successfully he has campaigned. I suspect he's going to surprise you as well.

The same argument in reverse was used to pooh-pooh Ronald Reagan's chances in 1980. In fact, I used that same argument in reverse. I was wrong. I believe you're wrong now.

Go back throughout our history, and you will find there are times when liberals do very well: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson. And actually we should throw John F. Kennedy in there, because he campaigned like a liberal even if he really wasn't one. There's a rhythm to our politics, some times favor conservatives, other times favor liberals. I believe we have entered one of the latter times now. There are so many things wrong with the way our nation is operating today, things that have been wrong for a long time but are now blatantly wrong, and visibly so to the average person. A reformer, a progressive -- a liberal -- is going to be the preferred choice in these days. It won't last forever, of course.

The remainder of the things you listed are all personal and peripheral, and it's a general rule that such things don't sway people nearly as much as one might expect. If people have a bad reaction to a candidate, they may give the voter an additional reason to vote against him, but they are never the main reason. People will like Obama's progressivism, and they will like his personal charisma, magnetism, and charm. All of those will be assets compared to McCain. Assuming he gets the Democratic nod, I believe Obama will win the general election.

It was in an article about PA exit polls. It was also mentioned last night on Charlie Rose. I haven't seen the actual raw exit poll data posted anywhere yet.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

You mean vital swing states like California, Massachussetts, and New York? Obama won Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nevada in Delegates. Those are swing states that we can measure.

And Pennsylvania gave it's electoral votes to Bill Clinton twice, Gore, and Kerry. Why is it all of a sudden at risk to go Republican?

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

You keep repeating this so I'll keep making the response. He lost those states when there were not significant policy differences to contrast the two candidates. They essentially agree, its more about who you know and who you feel comfortable with. In that sense Hillary had HUGE advantages in those states dating back over a decade, he had about two months of campaigning. Its amazing he got as close as he did.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

Don't count the north out, the south doesn't have an exclusive on it.

__________________
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. ~Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935

My take: Obama isn't a personal favorite of mine but I have noticed that he has a tendency to gain ground over time. The longer this race goes on, the more I think that Obama will gain ground. The only hope Hillary has is to get the super delegates on her side (which would probably tick off a lot of people). I think regardless of who gets the nomination the democrats are going to have some people who are downright upset about the winner.

__________________
Serious Quotes:


Funny But True Quotes
Those who argue for complete secularism are funny. They see what government does and then argue that we don't need it to start with prayer.

13% compared to about 92% of the black vote being based on race is not much of a 'plus' in favor of trying to tar this all as a 'white racist victory for Hillary', which is apparently the major spin going on at the moment in the MSM.

And apparently, the much touted 'youth vote' didn't put down their bongs and ButtBerries, or whatever those idiotic wastes of money are called, long enough to go to the polls, either.

__________________
"The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does, what problems this really solves." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

"A day without sunshine is, you know, night."- Shannon

Which, of course, is the only possible result in such a hypocritical and cognitively dissonant 'Party'.

__________________
"The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does, what problems this really solves." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

"A day without sunshine is, you know, night."- Shannon

So far they have awarded 127 delegates, 64 to Clinton, 63 to Obama, there are 31 yet to be awarded.
So as far as a victory goes, this is kinda like getting kissed by your sister.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

You mean dependable Democrat states like California, Massachussetts, and New York?......

Yes, he did do well there. But at that time, he was perceived - and presented himself - as far more moderate than he actually is.

How well do you think he will do after several months of the Wright story and the Ayers story and the "bitter blue collar people" story repeated endlessly, all the time? And the huge tax increases? And the ludicrous time table for the troops - which is giving information to the enemy?

Remember, since the beginning of his campaign, Obama has been carefully protected in a cocoon by a fawning, worshipful and devoted media.

He is treated with special care and, indeed, anyone who dares to question him is attacked. He was confronted in ONE debate with tough, curve ball questions - and he did very (surprisingly) poorly. He appears to have no idea how to handle a situation where he is NOT praised and worshipped and given special treatment.

But the moment the battle starts between the parties, those stories will be everywhere. You can be certain of that. If he throws a tantrum after one tough debate, how will he deal with the GOP machine?

After the Wright story broke, he gave a speech on race that "blew off" the Wright story. It was a reasonable and thoughtful left-wing speech. The media treated it like the Gettysburg address - slobbering over him with compliments.

They are so terrified of offending him that they are shielding him from reallity and treating him like a hothouse plant. That is just about the most patronzing, condescending nonsense imagineable.

Because Obama lost the primary.

If he is the nominee, he would be by far the most far-left nominee in American history. Those associations with the radical left - with their weird hatred of the United States and their hysterics and paranoia - are disastrous.

Among white blue collar voters, he lost in a landslide.

If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, i think she would have a good chance of winning PA - and Ohio. But not Obama.

You are way off base comparing Theodore Roosevelt to Obama.
Theodore Roosevelt was elevated to the Presidency by the death/murder of McKinley. During his first term he gained a reputation as militantly pro-american and was viewed as an expansionist to many and even an imperialist by his enemies. (according to David McCollough TR hated the word "imperialist" - he once said he'd "never met an imperialist in America". ) He built US Naval power by leaps and bounds. He foresaw an era of American ascendancy that ruled both the Atlantic and Pacific ocean. He championed the completion of the Panama Canal as the centerpiece to future American Naval superiority and to that end, he annexed the Phillipines, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam. These are far from "liberal" accomplishments.

His progressive and liberal views were focused towards universal health care, separation of church and state, and breaking up trusts/monopolies. Even though he possessed a healthy distrust of corporations, he was devoutly capitalist. What he really became was a "reformer" within his own party. He moved the Republicans closer to the center - like a moderate does. By today's standards TR would hardly be considered a "liberal".

Now tell me, who looks more like Theodore Roosevelt, McCain (the maverick of the Republican party) or Obama, the ideologue liberal who votes the party line at every opportunity?

__________________
I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."
-- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008