Stoddard baselessly asserted Obama "doesn't think he's going to win Ohio and Florida"
SUMMARY: During The Hill's online video segment "Ask A.B.," A.B. Stoddard asserted: "[Sen.] Barack Obama has pretty much conceded that he doesn't think that he's going to win Ohio and Florida, two states that are necessary to becoming president of the United States -- usually." Stoddard offered no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel recently quoted Rep. Robert Wexler, co-chairman of Obama's Florida campaign, as saying Obama "is confident he will win Florida," and a recent SurveyUSA poll shows Obama leading Sen. John McCain by nine percentage points in Ohio.
During the June 2 edition of The Hill's online video segment "Ask A.B.," Hill associate editor and frequent MSNBC commentator A.B. Stoddard asserted: "[Sen.] Barack Obama has pretty much conceded that he doesn't think that he's going to win Ohio and Florida, two states that are necessary to becoming president of the United States -- usually." Stoddard offered no evidence to support this claim. In fact, Obama spent three consecutive days campaigning in Florida starting on May 21, a schedule that Obama spokesman Bill Burton reportedly said "reflects the fact that we are still fighting for votes and delegates in the remaining contests but also that we are going to places that are going to be competitive in the fall." Moreover, a May 24 South Florida Sun-Sentinel report, which reported that an estimated 16,000 people attended an Obama campaign rally at the BankAtlantic Center in Sunrise, Florida, quoted Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), co-chairman of Obama's Florida campaign, as saying: "[Obama] believes he will win Florida. He is confident he will win Florida."
In addition, Stoddard did not explain her claim that Obama "doesn't think he's going to win Ohio." A SurveyUSA poll conducted from May 16 to May 18 showed Obama leading Sen. John McCain 48 percent to 39 percent in that state.
From the June 2 edition of "Ask A.B.," posted on The Hill's website:
STODDARD: Shawn from Virginia had a good question that I saved for this week. It is a forward-looking question about the general election, and I think it's a fascinating one. We don't -- Barack Obama has pretty much conceded that he doesn't think that he's going to win Ohio and Florida, two states that are necessary to becoming president of the United States -- usually. Excuse me, for having a George Bush moment and tripping over my tongue.
In a non-Ohio and Florida strategy, Senator Obama is going to have to pick up all of the reliable blue states, plus Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington. He's going to have to hold or keep those states. He's going to have to win Iowa, which looks good for him. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and then he's going to have to hope to win Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.
Very true, Obama never said that anywhere.
But it is very true that he's not going to win those states!
Very true, Obama never said that anywhere.
But it is very true that he's not going to win those states!
Time will tell. I see a Democratic landslide in the making, as more and more conservatives are getting fed up with Gramps McCain and millions will end up voting for Bob Barr and the Libertarians.
In 2004 I was optimistic that John Kerry would win, and look how great that turned out.
The only reason that Bush beat Kerry was because Rove was able to convince people who didn't care for Bush that Kerry would be a horrible choice and that it was better to vote for Bush than to have four years of a "flip-flopping traitor who will get us all killed and will legalize gay marriage".
I wish I had the optimism for an Obama landslide (I am going to do my part to make sure that happens) but there is still that deep down fear that McCain will win.
Well, I will say this about Ohio - if the majority of voters there vote for John 'I don't know much about the economy' McCain then they deserve to continue to get the enema for another four years.
But it is very true that he's not going to win those states!
Oh My God!
The Dems are going to lose! The Dems are going to lose! Why or why didn't those dumb Democrats nominate Hillary? What were they thinking? Everyone knows Hillary's the ONLY Democrat that can win!
<sarcasm off>
Pearlene,
I am about as glad as you that Obama won the nomination! Good bye and good riddance Hillary and Bill!
Carli,
Now that Obama seems inevitable, are you on board?
Obviously the Obama campaign would never say that, about any state.....but I would be interested to see where Ms. Stoddard got her information. It's a little silly to even say it, considering the election is months away.
And I would hope that is not the case.
It was baseless for her to assert that Obama has said this. However, polls within the last ten days have shown Obama trailing McCain in those two states. The opinion that he will lose those states is not baseless.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/254/story/38252.html
And other polls have Obama up in those states.
Polls are useless.
Polls are useless.
But eleven-foot poles are very useful for touching things that people wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. Like Gramps McCain.....
Perhaps. But that's not the opinion she gave.
Hence the misinformation.
"Excuse me, for having a George Bush moment and tripping over my tongue."
The only thing she said that made sense.
If I used leftwing talking points, I probably would have used that.
And "false stolen election theories" reminds me of Beef Tips in mushroom gravy. If that's not savory, I don't know what is. ;)
DB,
Sharp as a tack. :-)
Think of all the time and money that will be wasted campaigning in Florida and Ohio, when it's already been decided how those States will vote this November... you know, with insights like this, that border on clairvoyance, this stoddard could make a lot of money as a political consultant... it seems beneath her, to be reduced to someone talking into a camcorder, and posting themselves on the Internet... YouTube is full of such amateurs, isn't it.
It's a pretty fair criticism of Stoddard by mmfa...it is a ridiculous quote by Stoddard.
Just as important is the "uncritical reporting" by mma...to use one of their favorite tactics.
mmfa cites the Ohio SurveyUSA poll which shows Obama leading McCain by 9 points...while failing to cite the other 2 polls in the RCP average...which show McCain leading by 4 points and 1 point.
mmfa whiffs on Florida by citing no poll data. The RCP average of 3 polls finds McCain leading Obama by 11 points - 10 points - 4 points.
mmfa is no better than those they habitually criticize for their cherry picking of data...as this thread clearly points out.
My criticism is based on the "uncritical reporting" by mmfa...which they harangue readers with on a daily basis.
It was less than honest to cite only the one poll that plugged neatly into their argument...cherry picking deluxe.
Other than that...their criticism of Stoddard was completely justified.
You're correct...but they did.
Since mmfa chose to use polling data to support their story...they should have told the whole story...not just what they wanted you read.
mmfa is no different than the rest of the shoddy media when it comes to political pandering...while masquerading as a media watchdog.
One could say that MMFA's motto is "Fair, but not necessarily balanced."
I have no problem with that.
I'm sure the good people of the rust belt state of Ohio will be coming out in droves to vote for the old coot that has promised them not only more war, but more rust too.
Worrier,
Correction: The old coot promised to win the war. :-)
Obama, on the other hand, will be out in the sticks blending in at at Applebees - snacking on "Spinach & Artichoke Dip and boneless wings" - while searching out those bitter small town people clinging to antipathy, guns, and religion.
Geezer/gramps simply doesn't have a strategy to "win" and talking points won't win a guerilla campaign and civil war.
while searching out those bitter small town people clinging to antipathy, guns, and religion.
LOL
AA, make sure you give him your number.
Touche'!
You and Obama and anyone else are invited anytime. While we don't have the fancy food like New Orleans, we do have the Tomato and Corn Festivals. Nothing better than fresh corn-on-the-cob dipped in a vat of melted butter! :-)
ps. If you ever get to Cleveland, you gotta see the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame! Wow! When I went, I spent eight hours there and could have stayed longer. (Two hours were watching a movie about the Beatles.) Then go roller-coaster riding over at Cedar Point. :-)
Why would he be looking for McCain voters?
Actually here's how I see it playing out:
Give McCain ALL of the Southeast. That’s (AK, AL, FL, GE, KT, LS, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA & WV). That’s 173 Votes. Throw in the Mountain States (AZ, CO, ID, KS, MT, NB, NV, NM, ND, SD, UT, WY) and that gives him 61 more. Add AK’s 3 and he’s got 237 locked in.
Obama will easily with the reminder of the Pacific States (CA, OR, WA) for 77 votes and the Northeast (CT, DE, DC, ME, MD, MA, NH, NY, NJ, PA, RI & VT) for another 117, giving him 194.
So among my “easy to call” states, McCain leads 237 to 194.
Now for the Midwest: IN (11) will go for McCain. IL, MN & WS (41) will go for Obama, and MI (17) is likely. The tally now stands at Obama 252 to McCain 248. This Leaves IO (7), MO (11) and OH (20). If Obama wins OH, it’s all over for McCain. If Obama carries the other two (less likely, but possible) he can win without OH. McCain needs to win OH AND either IO or MO. But I could see McCain winning IO and probably MO as well, so I say that Obama should try to nail down OH. That should be where he spends the most time and $.
(Just a note: OH, MO have gone to the eventual winner in every election since 1964. No other states can claim that. So BOTH states are TRUE battlegrounds. ANYONE can win, and OBAMA must win at least OH.)
There may be some "upsets" in there (most likely: NM & WV for Obama, NH for McCain) but I still think the country remains sufficiently divided along party lines that I think it will be a close election. Obama has a huge advantage over Gore and Kerry though: the Republican's are a lot less popular than they were in 2000 and 2004 and Obama has more enthusiastic support. A lot of Gore's and Kerry's votes were really just votes AGAINST George W. Bush. But more of the votes for Obama will be votes FOR OBAMA.
Nice,
Interesting analysis. Thanks. :-)
ps. I'll be reporting live from OH during the campaign. May the best POW win. :-)
ps. What's up with Hillary. Is she angling for the Veep slot? Maybe she'll threaten to run as an independent, effectively tipping the election to McCain if Obama doesn't let her in? Maybe she'll wait for the convention while trying to find the skeletons in Obama's closet? What's up?
Maybe she'll threaten to run as an independent, effectively tipping the election to McCain if Obama doesn't let her in?
YOU BASTARD, DON'T SAY THAT!!! (LOL) God I hope you're wrong. McCain'll take all 50 states (Obama would still win DC) if that happened.
Well, you and I have tangled over McCain and Obama a few times now, but I have to say that I was never that high on Hillary myself. (If you accuse my of drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, I admit it, with pride. But what can I say: the guy just says what I want to hear, and thinks the same way I do about a lot of issues.) Clinton might be a "safe"choice as VP, but I don't think she'll get it. I could see Edwards (although moee as Attourney General that VP - that should give the con's some heartburn, no?) or Biden or Dodd. But Biden would be better as Secretary of State, Dodd's better off staying in the senate (as is Clinton IMHO) and WEBB (another name you hear a lot for VP) would be better (for the party) either in the Senate or as the Seceratry of Defense. (Assuming he doesn't cross the ailse and ask someone like Chuck Hagel.) I think if Obama wanted to tap into the feminist vote, and do it w/o Hillary, he should ask either Janet Napolitano and/or Kathleen Sebelius. Napolitano won't help in AZ (yeah, that'll go to McCain, I'm realistic) but Sebelius could help him in Kansas. Either one would be an asset though as they are not as well known (thus not as divisinve) as Clinton and yet both won the Governorship in heavily Republican States - so they can reach accross the aisle to moderates and they have shown they can WIN.
i don't think he'll win either FL or OH either. bear in mind, these polls are taken now, not during the GE. the republican 527's haven't even gotten geared up yet, and they are drooling in anticipation of an obama candidacy.
they'll have plenty to work with: rev. wright, rezko, bitter-gate, rev. pflegler, etc., mostly stuff that the clinton campaign handled with kid gloves; the republicans won't be so charitable. trust me, they won't care if they're accused of being racist.
so yeah, i'd take that poll with a huge grain of salt. nominating obama is almost a guarantee of a democratic loss in nov.
CP,
It's not that the Republicans don't mind being called racist, (which we as a group are not,) it is just that we are used to it as the Dems have been playing the race card for 40 years. Obama has played that one on Hillary and Bill. I doubt that he has that card up his sleeve for McCain.
All McCain has to do is not say anything stupid, (a difficult task,) and his campaign will show that the Freshman Senator is not yet ready to be leader of the Free World.
they'll have plenty to work with: rev. wright, rezko, bitter-gate, rev. pflegler, etc., mostly stuff that the clinton campaign handled with kid gloves; the republicans won't be so charitable. trust me, they won't care if they're accused of being racist.
I think there will always be a segment of this country that drinks the kool-aid. They are brain dead to the point where they let others think for them but there are plenty of people who do their own thinking. People who know that Rev. Wrights words are his OWN! Obama didn't lie, there are people who think gay marriage is a threat to their marriage and believe that someone wants to stop them from owning granddaddy's gun. They turn out in record numbers and vote Republican on gays and guns while they continue to lose jobs, homes and lifestyles becuase they choose to worry more about gay marriage than their plant closing and costing them their jobs. Some of those 'bitter' folks will even recognize themselves. Rev. Pfleger spoke those words, NOT Obama and some folks are intelligent enough to know it. The Clintons couldn't afford to go after Obama publicly but you can damn well believe they dished out plenty of dirt in private.
Everyone who thinks that Obama is naive, he doesn't know how to play the game are forgetting the Clinton machine. That Clinton machine that the Republicans haven't never been able to beat? Obama did. Those who have underestimated Obama have been in for a surprise, just ask Hillary.
Pearlene,
I always find it funny when I read how liberals define conservatives. No harm meant but you haven't a clue... (and neither does Obama.) However it does make for a great rant. :-)
Obama is the most telegenic candidate since Kennedy. His masterful speeches and primary game plan caught everyone off guard. Hillary was dragged down by everyone as the front runner, by her own tin ear, and by Bill's inopportune comments. The media turned on Hillary and treated her as if she were a Republican. Obama benefited from the young voters who see him as rock star. :-)
We'll see if Obama can maintain the enthusiasm as his leftist proposals and his intractability with regards to Iraq and insistance to meet with our enemies i(not to mention his radical friends,) s held up to the Republican attack machine.
(We'll also have to stand by to see if McCain does not shoot himself in the foot with more idiotic statements.)
It should be fun. :-)
Why do I get the sense that you view this whole thing as a game? I have some questions for you: What leftist proposals? You do realize that a majority of Americans want some kind of universal health care coverage?
Define "intractability" in regards to Iraq. In your answer please don't use a platitude like "winning" That's an insult to anyone's intelligence.
Can you explain why meeting with "our enemies" is a bad thing?
Do you think that McCain might have some "radical friends"? (Hint: chief campaign advisor lobbied for 3rd world dictatorship)
Do you approve of the Republican attack machine?
raise taxes
tax the rich
universal health care coverage
cap and trade
cut and run
pro-abortion
redefine marriage
open borders
gun control
"You do realize that a majority of Americans want some kind of universal health care coverage?"
Everyone wants peace too. The devil is in the details. How do we get it?
"Define "intractability" in regards to Iraq. In your answer please don't use a platitude like "winning" That's an insult to anyone's intelligence."
Why should I bother trying to define it when you are doing such a great job attaching conditions to what you think my definition should be. :-) Having said that, I am referring to the Dems refusal to admit the surge is working. Please don't insult my intelligence by countering by bringing up the political aspect. :-)
"Can you explain why meeting with "our enemies" is a bad thing?"
I didn't say talking to our enemies was a bad thing. But there has to be something concrete to be gained. I am of the "talk softly but carry a big stick" diplomacy. Obama showed his inexperience by turning a gaffe into a policy. The proposal to meet with our enemies without preconditions was very naive.
"Do you think that McCain might have some "radical friends"? (Hint: chief campaign advisor lobbied for 3rd world dictatorship)"
He might. If he does, it's fair game.
"Do you approve of the Republican attack machine?"
Not anymore than I approve of the Democrat attack machine. ;-)
raise taxes, tax the rich: Yep. Unless you like taxing your children and grandchildren more. McCain wants to cut taxes but not reduce the bloated military weapons budget. Guess what? Military spending is out of control!!! and the deficit will get bigger and bigger under grampy.
universal health care coverage: this isn't left wing. And it will save money. Why don't you study Ron Wyden's proposal as a good template:
cap and trade: Bush himself supports this (inappropriately for mercury emissions, of course) geez
cut and run: Oh come on. That's so lame. You dorkily want to still be in Vietnam, to "win" that one?
pro-abortion: grrr. NO ONE IS PRO ABORTION!!! stop it.
redefine marriage: Obama is not in favor of that. If you had any sense, you'd want the government out of the marriage biz altogether. The Libertarian position on this is great...government grants civil unions, up to the pair to find a minister to "marry" them.
open borders: again, very lame. You don't have any real thoughtful policy about immigration, do you? Nor have you heard Obama's position on this.
gun control: There has to be some. Any sane person would agree.
"I always find it funny when I read how liberals define conservatives. No harm meant but you haven't a clue... (and neither does Obama.) However it does make for a great rant. :-)"
AA, you couldn't be more off the mark here. The trouble is that you reighties have been drinkin the kool aid for so long that you don't even realize how stupid you soun anymore, or how out of touch you've gotten Take away the evangelicans (gay-haters) and the gun-toting libertarins (serperatists) and what do you ave supporting you? The top 2% of the US population by income. Republicans have been in power because religion (gays, abortion, prayer) and false patriotism (guns & flags) were used effectively to dupe people into voting against there own economic interetss by the very people who grew rich by outsourcing their jobs, breaking the power of their unions, and shifting the tax burden back to them (Reagan actualy RAISED taxes on median income earners on down - that's 1/2 of America paying MORE so that the top half, particularly the very top can pay less.) I'd love to know what part of the "conservative stereotype" you believe is false, because it looks pretty accurate from where I stand: An upper-class, white, otherwise staunchy republican family, (except for me.)
Nice,
I disagree with oh... about 100% of what you wrote.
I can tell you are liberal kool-aid drinker when you categorize anyone who disagrees with liberalism as "haters".
However it does make for a nice rant. :-)
If people vote for McCain in Ohio or elsewhere, one has to wonder about our electorate. The Iraq adventure is such an incredible financial drag on our economy, which McCain favors. He is impossible to pin down on many positions such as taxes and immigration, since his positions migrate so easily. It is a disgrace if McCain gets more than 20 percent of the vote.
wonder about the electorate? remember, this is the same electorate that voted for bush in 2004, after a 4 year display of absolute ineptitude!
so no, i have no illusions whatever regarding the intelligence of the electorate, many of whom actually believe rush limbaugh is a journalist.