NH: Rasmussen: Many cracks have appeared in a Kerry state

[elcorazon]

Walter.  I believe there is evil in the world.  And I believe you embody such evil.  As such I will go to the gates of hell to smoke you out and destroy you and your evil hordes.

[WalterMitty]

Walter.  I believe there is evil in the world.  And I believe you embody such evil.  As such I will go to the gates of hell to smoke you out and destroy you and your evil hordes.

the obama people and supporters have consistently said that the old rules dont apply.  they are drawing a new map.  50 state strategy!

[elcorazon]

Walter.  I believe there is evil in the world.  And I believe you embody such evil.  As such I will go to the gates of hell to smoke you out and destroy you and your evil hordes.

the obama people and supporters have consistently said that the old rules dont apply.  they are drawing a new map.  50 state strategy!

have you always been such a smug bastard?  seriously.  have you?  just to piss you off, I really hope obama does win North Dakota and Alaska (not that he will). 

Not to mention that it was actually Howard Dean who began the 50 state approach, not Obama.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Not to mention that it was actually Howard Dean who began the 50 state approach, not Obama.

Howard Dean started the 50 state stuff, but Obama has been following it too.  (Game changer!  We're changing the game!)

Which is ridiculous, because the '50 state strategy' actually makes sense on a non winner-take-all basis, but not in a Presidential race.

[elcorazon]

Not to mention that it was actually Howard Dean who began the 50 state approach, not Obama.

Howard Dean started the 50 state stuff, but Obama has been following it too.  (Game changer!  We're changing the game!)

Which is ridiculous, because the '50 state strategy' actually makes sense on a non winner-take-all basis, but not in a Presidential race.

I believe there are 2 major points to a game changing strategy.  One is to win down ticket races.  The other is that it challenges the assumption that the country and it's people will divide just as they have in recent elections in this coming election.  In other words, let's TRY to do well everywhere and then hone in at the end (or the middle ) where we feel we will get the most bang for the buck.

The idea that Obama's strategy is really markedly outside the box in this area is overstated, I believe.  Maybe he won't compete in North Dakota.  But do you honestly believe he's spent a significant amount of money to make an attempt to do so?  And what if he manages to win in Alaska or Indiana or North Carolina?  Does it really hurt to make an effort and see what happens?  Could be he loses all the noncompetitive states from 2004 that he is trying to convert.  But focusing on that whenever a poll comes in is just being ass.  There's no other explanation.  Walter's no better than Vanderblubb in that regard. 

[opebo]

Not to mention that it was actually Howard Dean who began the 50 state approach, not Obama.

Howard Dean started the 50 state stuff, but Obama has been following it too.  (Game changer!  We're changing the game!)

Which is ridiculous, because the '50 state strategy' actually makes sense on a non winner-take-all basis, but not in a Presidential race.

I believe there are 2 major points to a game changing strategy.  One is to win down ticket races.  The other is that it challenges the assumption that the country and it's people will divide just as they have in recent elections in this coming election.  In other words, let's TRY to do well everywhere and then hone in at the end (or the middle ) where we feel we will get the most bang for the buck.

The idea that Obama's strategy is really markedly outside the box in this area is overstated, I believe.  Maybe he won't compete in North Dakota.  But do you honestly believe he's spent a significant amount of money to make an attempt to do so?  And what if he manages to win in Alaska or Indiana or North Carolina?  Does it really hurt to make an effort and see what happens?  Could be he loses all the noncompetitive states from 2004 that he is trying to convert.  But focusing on that whenever a poll comes in is just being ass.  There's no other explanation.  Walter's no better than Vanderblubb in that regard. 

What the hell does Obama's strategy have to do with anything?  He's losing because he's black.

[Franzl]

Not to mention that it was actually Howard Dean who began the 50 state approach, not Obama.

Howard Dean started the 50 state stuff, but Obama has been following it too.  (Game changer!  We're changing the game!)

Which is ridiculous, because the '50 state strategy' actually makes sense on a non winner-take-all basis, but not in a Presidential race.

I believe there are 2 major points to a game changing strategy.  One is to win down ticket races.  The other is that it challenges the assumption that the country and it's people will divide just as they have in recent elections in this coming election.  In other words, let's TRY to do well everywhere and then hone in at the end (or the middle ) where we feel we will get the most bang for the buck.

The idea that Obama's strategy is really markedly outside the box in this area is overstated, I believe.  Maybe he won't compete in North Dakota.  But do you honestly believe he's spent a significant amount of money to make an attempt to do so?  And what if he manages to win in Alaska or Indiana or North Carolina?  Does it really hurt to make an effort and see what happens?  Could be he loses all the noncompetitive states from 2004 that he is trying to convert.  But focusing on that whenever a poll comes in is just being ass.  There's no other explanation.  Walter's no better than Vanderblubb in that regard. 

What the hell does Obama's strategy have to do with anything?  He's losing because he's black.

your trolling is starting to get old.

[elcorazon]

Not to mention that it was actually Howard Dean who began the 50 state approach, not Obama.

Howard Dean started the 50 state stuff, but Obama has been following it too.  (Game changer!  We're changing the game!)

Which is ridiculous, because the '50 state strategy' actually makes sense on a non winner-take-all basis, but not in a Presidential race.

I believe there are 2 major points to a game changing strategy.  One is to win down ticket races.  The other is that it challenges the assumption that the country and it's people will divide just as they have in recent elections in this coming election.  In other words, let's TRY to do well everywhere and then hone in at the end (or the middle ) where we feel we will get the most bang for the buck.

The idea that Obama's strategy is really markedly outside the box in this area is overstated, I believe.  Maybe he won't compete in North Dakota.  But do you honestly believe he's spent a significant amount of money to make an attempt to do so?  And what if he manages to win in Alaska or Indiana or North Carolina?  Does it really hurt to make an effort and see what happens?  Could be he loses all the noncompetitive states from 2004 that he is trying to convert.  But focusing on that whenever a poll comes in is just being ass.  There's no other explanation.  Walter's no better than Vanderblubb in that regard. 

What the hell does Obama's strategy have to do with anything?  He's losing because he's black.

your trolling is starting to get old.

more on point and logical and less old than waltermitty's though.

[Reaganfan]

Not to mention that it was actually Howard Dean who began the 50 state approach, not Obama.

Howard Dean started the 50 state stuff, but Obama has been following it too.  (Game changer!  We're changing the game!)

Which is ridiculous, because the '50 state strategy' actually makes sense on a non winner-take-all basis, but not in a Presidential race.

I believe there are 2 major points to a game changing strategy.  One is to win down ticket races.  The other is that it challenges the assumption that the country and it's people will divide just as they have in recent elections in this coming election.  In other words, let's TRY to do well everywhere and then hone in at the end (or the middle ) where we feel we will get the most bang for the buck.

The idea that Obama's strategy is really markedly outside the box in this area is overstated, I believe.  Maybe he won't compete in North Dakota.  But do you honestly believe he's spent a significant amount of money to make an attempt to do so?  And what if he manages to win in Alaska or Indiana or North Carolina?  Does it really hurt to make an effort and see what happens?  Could be he loses all the noncompetitive states from 2004 that he is trying to convert.  But focusing on that whenever a poll comes in is just being ass.  There's no other explanation.  Walter's no better than Vanderblubb in that regard. 

What the hell does Obama's strategy have to do with anything?  He's losing because he's black.

He is losing because people think he's not ready for primetime.

[J. J.]

NH was a close state in the last two elections, and I see no reason why it wouldn't be in this one.

In looking at the primary results, which are not particularly predictive, there is nothing that gives me any indication that the state would be staunchly pro-Obama.

[jamestroll]

Only Hillary would have been ahead in NH by a wide margin. She would probably be leading by 8 to 10 points now.

[Franzl]

Only Hillary would have been ahead in NH by a wide margin. She would probably be leading by 8 to 10 points now.

ummm....no

[Gustaf]

Obama will win here in NH.

That's a good point. I hadn't thought of that.

[TheresNoMoney]

That's a good point. I hadn't thought of that.

I'm the only regular on this forum that actually lives in NH, so that is my educated opinion based on my knowledge of the state and its politics. 

You can cry yourself to sleep when McCain loses.

[elcorazon]

That's a good point. I hadn't thought of that.

I'm the only regular on this forum that actually lives in NH, so that is my educated opinion based on my knowledge of the state and its politics. 

You can cry yourself to sleep when McCain loses.

I agree with your ultimate result, but your logic here is reminding me of Phil in PA, which is not a good thing.

[TheresNoMoney]

I know the demographics of the state, the party registration, the mood of the independent voter.  Everything leads me to believe that Obama wins here in NH by 3%-7%.

Phil ignores the huge party ID difference in his state.

[Gustaf]

That's a good point. I hadn't thought of that.

I'm the only regular on this forum that actually lives in NH, so that is my educated opinion based on my knowledge of the state and its politics. 

You can cry yourself to sleep when McCain loses.

You need to look into those anger issues you have. But I'll give you a chance at thinking logically and engaging in real debate. You may find it to be an uplifting excercise.

1. You're not the only regular on this forum from New Hampshire. In fact, you're not even the only poster on THIS THREAD from New Hampshire.
2. Even if you were, that wouldn't make me take your word, backed up by nothing over actual polling and historical data.
3. I never said McCain was going to win the state. And I certainly wouldn't cry if it happened. I merely noted my amusement at your post.

[opebo]

What the hell does Obama's strategy have to do with anything?  He's losing because he's black.

your trolling is starting to get old.

Do you mean that you disagree?

[Franzl]

What the hell does Obama's strategy have to do with anything?  He's losing because he's black.

your trolling is starting to get old.

Do you mean that you disagree?

Yes, quite strongly.

[Gustaf]

I know the demographics of the state, the party registration, the mood of the independent voter.  Everything leads me to believe that Obama wins here in NH by 3%-7%.

Phil ignores the huge party ID difference in his state.

There is only one independent voter in New Hampshire? Who knew.

[TheresNoMoney]

There is only one independent voter in New Hampshire? Who knew.

You're clever.

[Gustaf]

There is only one independent voter in New Hampshire? Who knew.

You're clever.

I don't understand what you mean. Are there more than 1 independent voter in New Hampshire? You see, I don't live there so I wouldn't know. I just assumed that if there were hundreds of thousands of independent voters there they wouldn't have one singular mood and it would be pretty hard for a single person (even one possessing the unique characteristic of living there) to know it. But again, I don't live in New Hampshire so it's obviously impossible for me to form an educated opinion on the matter.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is only one independent voter in New Hampshire? Who knew.

You're clever.

I don't understand what you mean. Are there more than 1 independent voter in New Hampshire? You see, I don't live there so I wouldn't know. I just assumed that if there were hundreds of thousands of independent voters there they wouldn't have one singular mood and it would be pretty hard for a single person (even one possessing the unique characteristic of living there) to know it. But again, I don't live in New Hampshire so it's obviously impossible for me to form an educated opinion on the matter.

Actually Gustaf, you're betraying the fact that you're not a native speaker of English.  In the original context using the singular form instead of the plural form is acceptable grammar for spoken English.  It's an elision of "the 'typical' independent voter" that makes voter into a mass noun.  It does cause a lack of clarity, which is why such elision is a bad idea for technical writing.

Also, if you're going to gig others on plurals, your question should have been "Is there more than 1 independent voter in New Hampshire?" not "Are there ...".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is only one independent voter in New Hampshire? Who knew.

You're clever.

I don't understand what you mean. Are there more than 1 independent voter in New Hampshire? You see, I don't live there so I wouldn't know. I just assumed that if there were hundreds of thousands of independent voters there they wouldn't have one singular mood and it would be pretty hard for a single person (even one possessing the unique characteristic of living there) to know it. But again, I don't live in New Hampshire so it's obviously impossible for me to form an educated opinion on the matter.

Actually Gustaf, you're betraying the fact that you're not a native speaker of English.  In the original context using the singular form instead of the plural form is acceptable grammar for spoken English.  It's an elision of "the 'typical or average' independent voter" that makes voter into a mass noun.  It does cause a lack of clarity, which is why such elision is a bad idea for technical writing.  It also implies that Scoonie thinks that independent voters are more or less interchangeable, which I would disagree with, but that's another matter.

Also, if you're going to gig others on plurals, your question should have been "Is there more than 1 independent voter in New Hampshire?" not "Are there ...".