Pollster.com

BUt, but but the Obama supports swore Kansas would go for Obama.

Yes, I was also wondering about the Kansas = Obama prediction.

I'm an Obama supporter and while I'm only one person, I never thought Kansas would be in play for Obama in the general, not even with Sebelius on the ticket. That said, I think he can make it a bit closer than recent Dem presidential candidates, but he's not going to win there. In 2000, it went Bush, 60-38. In 2004, it again went Bush, 62-37. Based on this poll, Obama looks to be in good shape to improve on both Gore's and Kerry's numbers in Kansas.

Agreed - In fact, not sure I recall hearing anyone say Kansas, MS, TX, LA would go to Obama. McCain supporters these are your electoral votes and I don't think any realistic Obama supporter would deny them to you. OK? OK.

Bitter Hillaryites still hanging around here for their few moments of "I told you so?"

I do not know the purpose of the response by Andrew_in_California except to disrupt and be uncivil.

The facts are that at one time Kansas figured prominently in the Obama strategy.

I don't know what the Republicans on this site are celebrating about. If Obama loses Kansas by only low double digits, what does that imply about Ohio's, Florida's, Missouri's, and Virginia's. The answer is that he will carry most of the true swing states and win the election, while McCain celebrates his hard-fought victories in states like Kansas, Montana, and Texas. In fact, the general election is already reminding me of the primary: Obama plays to win the election, while his opponent is bogged down in notions of momentum and moral victories.

My post is a mere response to your original comments. Why would you come here to post about something after the fact to shove it in the pollster community faces? Who's the uncivil one? My comment was just an intelligent and civil comment at understanding your motive. Recognizing your spite is just an observation. Plain and simple.

Many people do think that a Sibelius ticket would put Kansas in play. Just like McCain is planning to fight for Minnesota with a Pawlenty play. Obama continues to have a 50 state strategy that he is beginning to start. I mean its easy to criticize his performance here less than 3 weeks since the primary has ended. But I wouldn't expect spiteful Hillaryites to really give any sort of giving analysis to this strategy anyways.

So what does Andrew find "spiteful" about my statement "Yes, I was also wondering about the Kansas = Obama prediction?" A very basic sentence with no descriptors.

Note that I was the second poster her so I also do not understand the accusation of "post about something after the fact." And since Andrew's "bitter" comment was most apparently directed in a negative way toward me and another poster, it was acceptable for me to respond to such.

First-- I made a legitimate and relevant observation that was put forward with no ideological bent whatever. The other poster used irony.

Second-- Neither one of us demeaned any other poster here, which would have been very difficult to do because we posted before any others.

It is a real shame that my non-partisan statements bring about personalized attacks.

Calling other posters "spiteful Hillaryites" is name calling. Andrew's continued use of that tactic leads to harassment. He needs to review the comment policy ASAP.

According to the last SurveyUSA poll, Sebelius on the ticket only brings Obama up to a maximum of 41% from 39%.

This poll is from one month ago, but it has McCain 49 to Obama 39 and lists potential VP contests.

(Click on "Kansas" under 2008 poll data in the column to the right and then click on Survey USA for the source.)

I never called you a spiteful Hillaryite. I just described you as spiteful which I believe to be a legitimate claim on your one line analysis of the Kansas outcome. I have no idea really if you are really a Hillaryite.

Anyways, it's not name calling under your definition, technically its an adjective and a descriptor of your analysis in how I wrote it. Now if I did call you a spiteful Hillaryite that would technically be a noun and be deemed "name calling." Although I recognize this group as a legitimate group of people (as per many recent Main stream media stories) that exist and are pivotal as a voting block in the general election.

(See story for details)
http://www.slate.com/id/2193470/

I merely expected people who would lump themselves and self proclaim to be spiteful Hillaryites to not give warrant to Obama's 50 state Kansas strategy. No need to continue to misunderstand my innuendo, so I'll stop you there. As per the comment policy section I'm making no claim to your person and spiteful is not an abusive word. I'm sorry, it just isn't.

The same goes for bitter which I would only use as a synonym for spiteful. I haven't seen many of your posts before. I'm sorry but my comments do not solely take you into consideration nor will they in the future. Rest assured I'm only sorry if you happened to lump yourself into these categories and may have offended you just like you predisposed the Obama Prediction group of people that may or may not post on this site.

It will be interesting to see these bitter, spiteful, Hillaryites if they ever warm up to Obama on many blogs or continue to nay say past predictions like it was 20/20 foresight. I hope that clarifies everything.

Wow... 6 paragraphs on why it is OK to call another poster "spiteful" and "bitter." Is this a new Obama rule? In other words, that any comment not gushing for Obama is inferred to be "spiteful" and "bitter?" And that such comments are therefore not considered to be "uncivil?"

Yet, no response to my last post above regarding the weakness of Sebelius on the ticket (rather than helping put Kansas in play). Looks like Kansas will remain a very red state.

Why do people have to play everything down that is not in Obama's favor? Kansas was in the Obama game plan at one time, so that is something he will have to work around.

Good point.