jacksonian
(699 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-06-08 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #29 |
| 30. looking at tonight's numbers |
|
I see real weakness in California for Obama. A lot of the people who did not support him are the ones most attractive to the McCain camp as well.
Weakness in California is not a winning strategy for any Dem. As it stands now, Obama would have to spent a great deal of time and money in that state to keep it from going red - which it can do, believe me and Arnold - not at all what our nominee should be doing.
Now scoff away.
|
| -Hillary wins the states required to win the Presidency! |
liberalnurse |
Feb-06-08 01:06 AM |
#0 |
 -
Obama won Missouri the one that counts |
mihalevich |
Feb-06-08 01:07 AM |
#1 |
  -
I didn't list Obama's.......... I'm tired tonight. |
liberalnurse |
Feb-06-08 01:10 AM |
#4 |
| -
Democrats could field Ted Bundy and win in CA, NY, and MA |
alcibiades_mystery |
Feb-06-08 01:09 AM |
#2 |
| -
A little |
sjdnb |
Feb-06-08 02:11 AM |
#32 |
| -
Wow..it took a pretty severe victim complex to get THAT out of my post |
alcibiades_mystery |
Feb-06-08 02:23 AM |
#33 |
| -
Washington? Virginia? |
Tweed |
Feb-06-08 01:10 AM |
#3 |
| -
It's the General Election scoring system....... |
liberalnurse |
Feb-06-08 01:13 AM |
#9 |
| -
LOL, you saw the superdelegate totals and thought WA and VA voted |
Tweed |
Feb-06-08 01:21 AM |
#19 |
| -
Can I borrow your time machine? |
progressive_realist |
Feb-06-08 01:11 AM |
#5 |
| -
As if any Democrat wouldn't win Dem states |
sandnsea |
Feb-06-08 01:12 AM |
#6 |
| -
No, winning primaries is quite different from winning general elections. |
Benhurst |
Feb-06-08 01:16 AM |
#13 |
| -
Precisely my point |
sandnsea |
Feb-06-08 01:20 AM |
#18 |
| -
Clinton has Ohio......... |
liberalnurse |
Feb-06-08 01:19 AM |
#16 |
| -
She had the coronation one month ago |
sandnsea |
Feb-06-08 01:22 AM |
#21 |
| -
What? |
liberalnurse |
Feb-06-08 01:23 AM |
#22 |
| -
why are people under |
southern_dem |
Feb-06-08 01:13 AM |
#7 |
| -
Democrats are voting in heards these days...... |
liberalnurse |
Feb-06-08 01:14 AM |
#11 |
| -
Exactly. |
Benhurst |
Feb-06-08 01:33 AM |
#23 |
| -
Besides what the people above me have said |
Indenturedebtor |
Feb-06-08 01:13 AM |
#8 |
| -
Let's get real, these are mostly Democrats voting for Democrats, and republicans voting for |
still_one |
Feb-06-08 01:13 AM |
#10 |
| -
Um.... CA and NY would be won by ANY democrat.... |
scheming daemons |
Feb-06-08 01:16 AM |
#12 |
| -
Obama won more swing states. Any democrats can get MA. CA. NY. NJ etc |
TheDonkey |
Feb-06-08 01:16 AM |
#14 |
| -
Yeah, and any Democrat has a shot at winning Democratic primaries. |
Benhurst |
Feb-06-08 01:19 AM |
#15 |
| -
wrong thread again. |
Benhurst |
Feb-06-08 01:40 AM |
#27 |
| -
posted to wrong thread. |
Benhurst |
Feb-06-08 01:37 AM |
#25 |
| -
She is heavily favored in Ohio, last I heard. |
Straight Shooter |
Feb-06-08 01:19 AM |
#17 |
| -
Not too long ago, I heard, she was heavily favored to win |
lapfog_1 |
Feb-06-08 01:37 AM |
#26 |
| -
She has to get the nomination to win. It looks lke she might |
JeanGrey |
Feb-06-08 01:22 AM |
#20 |
| -
This is the silliest analysis I've seen all night. |
lapfog_1 |
Feb-06-08 01:35 AM |
#24 |
| -
This is nonsense. |
billyskank |
Feb-06-08 01:43 AM |
#28 |
| -
So whats your point? |
gmudem |
Feb-06-08 01:48 AM |
#29 |
| -
looking at tonight's numbers |
jacksonian |
Feb-06-08 02:03 AM |
#30 |
| -
Too bad a Dem primary is completely different from a GE. |
cottonseed |
Feb-06-08 02:05 AM |
#31 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread