goawaybillary:

Looks like Obama will get Missouri! You can put it on the board....YESSS!

Posted on May 8, 2008 2:33 PM

 boskop:

billary..

you're fun. having been off line for a while i realize you're a comic and enjoy the huzza huzza of your cheering. no problemo.

keep truckin' babe!!

Posted on May 8, 2008 3:15 PM

 Rasmus:

... because he is 6 points behind??
Sorry, I like Obama very much, but that spin is just strange.

Posted on May 8, 2008 3:15 PM

 Nickberry:

I am a little confused... It appears that Missouri favors McCain and Clinton... not Obama... which is pretty consistent with previous polls... as well as the primary where Obama barely got 1% over Hillary. The urban vote just does not outweigh the rural vote in Missouri.

Posted on May 8, 2008 3:16 PM

 Rasmus:

LOL
Rasmussens post to that is one of the strangest ever:

"The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Missouri shows that John McCain retains a significant lead over his likely opponent, Barack Obama. McCain attracts 47% of the Show-Me State vote while Obama earns 41%....The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds John McCain leading Hillary Clinton by nine percentage points, 50% to 41%. He leads Barack Obama by an even larger margin, 53% to 38%."

"George W. Bush won those 11 Electoral Votes four years ago by winning the popular vote 53% to 46%...George W. Bush won the state twice by double digits."

-.-
Since when is a 53-46 margin a double-digit win?

Posted on May 8, 2008 3:27 PM

 goawaybillary:

let's just say, I know a little something that you don't know (and can't really share right now)......we'll just leave it at that. but I'd be willing to wager that obama carries missouri come november.

Posted on May 8, 2008 3:38 PM

 political_junki:

Personally I think MO will be fair game for both Obama and McCain with the scale leaning towards latter a little bit. We'll have to wait...

Posted on May 8, 2008 6:01 PM

 damitajo1:

what is there to know? an active fraud campaign? lol. unless obama can get rural voters, he will lose miss and ohio.

Posted on May 8, 2008 8:03 PM

 adocarbog:

looks like MO might go with the crypt keeper.
Fortunately we are a little bit more progressive in Iowa.
Just last week I was driving through the MO country to KC. Love KC but to get there you go through some places you just have to wonder about. We are no angels here in IA but so places in MO, Boy.

Posted on May 8, 2008 11:30 PM

 Uri:

Missouri is a complicated situations because there is a highly scrutinized senate race because of Franken. People tend to vote for a president from the same party as their senate vote. If Franken does extremely well towards the elections, it can attract more independents. If he is considered a gimmick candidate and fails miserably, it can be a backlash.

Posted on May 8, 2008 11:59 PM

 Uri:

@adocarbog: Last week I was driving through MO from St. Louis towards Oklahoma and my impression was that most of MO tends right winged and religious with the exception of the urban areas. Some areas actually have "dixie pride" which makes it even more interesting.

This may well come down to how the religious block accepts JMC. He's been talking this week about repealing Roe vs. Wade and electing more supreme court judges like the ones Bush appointed and that appeals to them. If the churches activate their organizations, MO would easily go red no matter what Obama or HRC would do.

Posted on May 9, 2008 12:04 AM

 HESSIAN:

Uri,
Franken is running in MN, not MO.
You can win MO without the rural vote, but you need to win the suburbs, blow out the urban cores of STL and KC, and add to your margin in places like Rolla. Obama's voter registration drive could make a real diference in MO, but I think that IA, CO, VA, NM, and NV are all more likely candidates for Bush states (vs Kerry in '04) that will go for Obama.

Posted on May 9, 2008 12:20 AM

 Nickberry:

It does not make sense that the Obama campaign thinks it can get Missouri, Nevada, and New Mexico, in the general.

First, Obama barely beat Hillary in Missouri (less than 1%)... and there will be a lot more conservatives voting in the general to more than offset the urban voters who went for Obama.

Second, Obama has a problem in Nevada with his support of Yucca Mountain as the nuclear dump site.

Third, New Mexico borders McCain's state of Arizona. They pretty well know him, plus Hispanic voters like McCain and overall share many of his values.

Posted on May 9, 2008 11:42 AM

 Andrew_in_California:

New Mexico doesn't share any ideology with Arizona. Like I've said before regionalism isn't an excuse for president. New Mexico is far more liberal and progressive than Arizona. If John Kerry can win New Mexico Obama can. Obama additionally does very well in Nevada, the state is urbanizing in the south and even though he lost the caucus slightly it is always fair game. Missouri is harder but Obama won it once he can potentially win it again.

Further more states Obama puts into play are Coloradao which has been growing rapidly and becoming more left leaning in the past 8 years. Potentially states like Alaska and Montana which SurveyUSA put Obama 5% behind McCain. The sky is the limit. I'm not necessarily sure McCain will get white men on his side if they still remember his Immigration Bill which was so unpopular to them.

Posted on May 9, 2008 11:58 AM

 Tybo:

"If John Kerry can win New Mexico Obama can. "

Kerry lost New Mexico. and Obama lost New Mexico in the primary.
Latinos are weaker for Obama than white working class.
ANd McCain has a long strong history with hispanics in New Mexico.
It's a laugh that Alaska will go Dem... Obama got somthing like 70 votes in the primary.

Posted on May 9, 2008 2:11 PM