Reply #18: Some thoughts for you

[Awsi Dooger]

Hillary has been betrayed by her advisors, horrible strategy particularly in the lesser populated states. She had very high unfavorable ratings to begin with.

Yet Obama is barely ahead. If it were poll percentage instead of actual votes, this would be comfortably within the margin of error.

So is Obama really an all-conquering phenom, or did he merely have his hand raised when the other side fell out of the ring?

LOL. It reminds me of the inane "overrated, overrated..." chants at sporting events. Nothing like diminishing your own accomplishment, by insisting the opposition was dramatically overstated to begin with.

Hillary was hardly an overwhelming favorite. She was basically 50/50 vs. the Field on market sites for more than a year. An implosive shortsighted campaign, and she trails by a fraction.

I'd be much more confident in Obama toward November if Hillary had run a phenomenal race, unblemished by controversy, yet he comfortably put her away. This thread itself says, "...where the fault truly lies," referring to a poor campaign taking the White House away from Hillary. Teams that rely on turnovers are less than they appear.

Obama has demographic weakness in key states, and likability/charisma is not as decisive in open races after 2 straight terms with the other side in charge. That's something I've posted on DU for years. It's hardly summoned in Hillary's behalf or to knock Obama. Personal qualities are necessary to oust an incumbent, some pizazz to say, "yes, I favor him over the known quantity." In open races the course of the nation is at stake, basically even weight given to either argument, and it's absolutely critical the nominee's forte is issue strength that can hold up to intense scrutiny.

In another thread today someone put it very well, that Hillary is like a blue chip stock, a long term known quantity, and that's built into the price. How can we ignore a built in price adjustment when it favored us so dramatically in '06? That's all '06 was, a situational avalanche of a second term midterm simultaneous with unpopular president and war. My concern is we put too much stock in that result, and believe we can get away with nominating virtually anyone, regardless of slim resume.

Obama is more of a gamble on greatness, both in terms of electoral vulnerability and the type of president he'll become. I've lived in Las Vegas for 20+ years and know odds very well. No way I'd choose that option over the safer nature of the former, not in a year with a smaller than '06 Democratic tilt, and with the economy the overriding concern. Hillary would be huge chalk to dominate McCain in discourse over the economy.

All the speeches and upbeat threads are charming but bottom line we don't win minus at least one among Florida, Ohio or Virginia. All three states have backwards tendencies, and high percentage of self-identified conservatives.

I think Obama can narrowly pull it off but the base of our party is handicapping incorrectly, which is the norm.