Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Watching Returns at Spitfire..... | McCain Speaks »

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

From What I Can Tell…

posted by on March 4 at 18:43 PM

…the governor of Pennsylvania is on MSNBC right now arguing that we have to nominate Hillary Clinton, “because we have to nominate the person who can win in the blue and purple states,” like California and Ohio. The implication, I guess, is that California—bright blue California—will go for the GOP nominee in November if Clinton isn’t on the ballot in November.

Oh, wait… here’s John McCain… but I can’t hear a word he’s saying… argh! I think he’s saying something about “peace with honor,” or a “secret plan to end the war.” Whatever he’s saying, here’s what we should be saying: John McCain = Bob Dole. Old man running.

Not raising any money, W. strapped to his back, not gonna win.

UPDATE: And over on the Dem side… Clinton is crushing Obama in Ohio and Rhode Island, Obama is edging Clinton in Texas and crushing her in Vermont. So right now it looks like the night might be a draw. And if things keep tacking this way… if Dem voters refuse to choose… when do Hillary and Obama concede victofeat and join forces? Clinton/Obama ‘08? Or Obama/Clinton ‘08?

Then again… Bill did say that Hillary had to win Ohio and Texas to stay in the race.

And Hillary may not win Ohio. With 31% of the vote counted, she’s way ahead: 57% to Obama’s 41%. But only a tiny number of votes in most of Ohio’s big cities—Cleveland, Toledo, Cincinnati—have been counted. So… the NYT isn’t calling Ohio yet, and neither am I.

RSS icon Comments

1

this is what i totally can not understand;

obama cant win the states clinton won in the general and vice versa. there is no basis for such a projection though.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 4, 2008 6:50 PM
2

In other important election news, I just heard on the radio (if you want a link, use Google) that the stadium vote in OK is passing by a wide margin.

SUCKERS! :P

Posted by Mike of Renton | March 4, 2008 6:53 PM
3

B.A. the basis is that when Obama can't have a big percentage of the voters meet him first hand or get motivated supporters out to a caucus he doesn't do well. Except for IL he hasn't won in a big Dem state. If he loses Ohio that track record will remain.

And he won't win SC, GA, VA or ID in the general.

Posted by McG | March 4, 2008 6:58 PM
4

Yeah, Clinton can win in November. The Hispanics will vote for her in droves. A large number of dissaffected African Americans and youth won't be there to help though.

Posted by Good luck with that | March 4, 2008 6:58 PM
5

Interestingly, I recall seeing a poll that shows McCain leading Hillary in WA & OR, and close in CA. McCain also wins Iowa, Wisconsin, & Missouri.

Posted by McCain FTW! | March 4, 2008 7:02 PM
6

90% of what John McCain consists of "my" and "friends."

Posted by mary-kate | March 4, 2008 7:03 PM
7

Nixon + Dole = McCain

Posted by vooodooo84 | March 4, 2008 7:05 PM
8

@6 Huh?

Posted by johnnie | March 4, 2008 7:05 PM
9

What the governor is failing to see is that democrats are coming out in droves to vote. Does he really not think that we are all going to get behind whoever is wins the democratic nomination? Puhlease...

Posted by wiseblood | March 4, 2008 7:09 PM
10

i love ed rendell.

Posted by um | March 4, 2008 7:12 PM
11

Did anyone else see that McCain beats Obama in NEW JERSEY? That's what people like the gov of PA are talking about.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_jersey/new_jersey_2008_presidential_election

I'm kind of nervous given that I think it's 99.9 certain that Obama will be our nom.

Posted by arduous | March 4, 2008 7:12 PM
12

HRC is closing the gap in TX. Just 30,000 votes difference now.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 4, 2008 7:14 PM
13

McG

you're not actually providing any reasoning behind what you're saying. you're just repeating the results.

didn't clinton win general election in states where he lost the primary in 1992?

trying to extrapolate a state by state victory by registered voters for respective parties isn't really the best way to make a case for why a candidate will or will not win in that state.

i think the fact that both candidates have won states, with primaries, that havent voted democratic in the past 2 elections is a good reason to discount using that as an analysis for future projection on their chances.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 4, 2008 7:21 PM
14

arduos, the thing that sucks for democrats is that they are screwed either way.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 4, 2008 7:25 PM
15

i also think it is quite funny that obama was near dead even in total votes as all republicans combined in states he lost to clinton.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 4, 2008 7:45 PM
16

some states that is

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 4, 2008 7:45 PM
17

In every state both Clinton and Obama each had usually as many votes as the total votes cast for all GOP candidates. In Rhode Island, Obama had 3 times the total GOP votes and Clinton had 5 times the total GOP votes.

I wouldn't want to have an (R) after my name in this election ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 4, 2008 11:49 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).