Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
- To: "MLUG Off-Topic Discussion" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] interesting Indiana Primary point
- From: "Jonathan King" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 07:18:51 -0400
- Delivery-date: Wed, 07 May 2008 06:19:01 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=ZHAtrVCBzb5nReK26E/chD0OKIHtQibjDwAn5CZtgw8=; b=aMUOb/5TEcm0mVbOpkLKl+ecrRSTVn1XyREM2aJRTDlq73X0HMDR9G9DOKolozAun6Qtii7tNAerNUt5eCsi7yhgiM15zMkW9gm1Fnis65ea9H6nn4smmY9OWC/O1rW/n7pQhydC/a1ctspWtBKfYGFEA1U+k4RA3j3klNGyyy4=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=F0qCp+iEnBqRZvbE2uHBTRUlxHAcjF1SuObUHVCy5eagRw6aT4T1bDKj1Zio9rIoXm95Yr5sVAs73ggrc3nG2YSBsyi68INuJ1xhVv/UiXv1uTMsR2xHGUwByM6CgADAW9mursrYOpM6aocdxbtoH1yKfuGGcdQLuSqgGiiuvas=
- Envelope-to: EMAIL:PROTECTED
- In-reply-to: <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- References: <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Reply-to: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Sender: EMAIL:PROTECTED
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:45 AM, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008, Jonathan King wrote:
>
> > Unless McCain does something insane, Clinton-Obama would be lucky to win
> > 17 states (CA, OR, WA, NY, IL, MA, CT, RI, VT, WI, MD, NJ, DE, MN, AR, HI,
> > and *maybe* MI or CO or NM).
>
> Why not Ohio?
Democrats have not won Ohio since 1996, and I don't see any compelling
reason why they should start doing so now.
> > > I also think that 8 years as VP will make Obama unstoppable in 2016, but
> > > they'd have to win re-election in 2012.
> >
> > I'm seeing 2012 as a very tricky year for incumbents.
>
> Why?
The Iraq war will be nine years old by then and the war in Afghanistan
will be over ten, gas will be over $7 per gallon, the budget will
really be a mess. We are unlikely to have had real healthcare reform
yet, and the economy generally could be suprisingly weak. Running on
that "record" (even if it wasn't mostly your fault) will be very
tough.
> > You could be right, but I doubt it. The way to bet would be McCain to win
> > in 2008 (again, barring something weird, but weird is definitely possible)
> > and any incumbent in 2012 to lose.
>
> I'm surprised that you think McCain has it all wrapped up. That isn't what
> I'm hearing from most observers, but they're mostly a bunch of liberals.
OK, I am basing this on the fact that about 45% of the electorate will
vote for any Republican under almost any circumstances. Then the
question is whether as many as 10% of the rest of the electorate will
find themselves unable to vote either for a woman or a black guy. I am
pretty sure the answer is "yes, definitely". Thus, I can project that
McCain will win the popular vote. Bush was just able to win the
electoral vote without winning the popular vote, but he could only do
that because he (and pretty much every other Republican) can win more
small states.
There are scenarios where McCain can lose, but they all pretty much
depend on him looking very frail and/or the economy completely
imploding by November. I don't think that's the way to bet.
> McCain has already said that he might not run in 2012 if he wins in 2008.
That may or may not be relevant.
jking
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion