Comments on: Ahead in CO and IA as he always has been, Obama now only needs… South Dakota?

By: dannity

dannity — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:28:42 +0000

The problem for McCain is that despite his flipping on offshore drilling, he’s still against drilling in ANWR. I applaud him for this as drilling is just a naked profit grab by the oil companies which Republicans are trying to turn into a wedge issue, but I have no doubt that he’ll flip on that as well if he feels he needs Alaska’s EV’s.

The key for Obama is that if he is able to put enough pressure on McCain in Alaska to force him to go back on his position, Obama can make McCain pay a political price for flipping. That is, of course, provided anyone actually cares to cover another McCain policy shift, which so far hasn’t been the case at all.

By: Joe from NC

Joe from NC — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:59:05 +0000

The issue of drilling in ANWR could hurt all Democrats in AK. The issue has the state sharply divided, but those in favor have a slight majority due to the increased annual oil fund. This could cancel out any benefit to Obama due to the Supreme Court decision.

As for Colorado, if it weren’t for the extremely conservative city of Colorado Springs, the state would be firmly in Obama’s column.
Of course removing one city from most states would drastically change that states politics!

By: Brent

Brent — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:16:09 +0000

Phrank, I agree. I mentioned Alaska before as one of the important 3 vote states (notably, added to CO’s 9). I’d bet a visit (especially and overnighter) by Obama early on would really force the issue. I’m 58 years old and still can hear the remnants of some old song “North ! to Alaska,….”

By: mpd

mpd — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:48:54 +0000

Does it matter? Obama and McSame have both made it quite clear they are ready to sell out the working class to the highest corporate bidder.

By: Phrank

Phrank — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:43:23 +0000

If you want to look at a three electorial vote state where McCain may have REAL problems, check out Alaska Take a look at the number of people who will be receiving less money from the Exxon-Valdez settlement because of the Republican’s pro-business Supreme Court. Then look at the total number of voters in the state. You’ll get a recipe for disaster for the Rs.

By: Jim W

Jim W — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:04:10 +0000

Tatiana,

Excellent point, and a very interesting question. Obama winning these states will plant seeds for future Presidential elections, and his immediate success will provide coattails for other Democratic candidates. If you look at the LBJ landslide of 64 or the Reagan landslide of 80, you will see that both candidates helped their party. Of course, Nixon’s landslide of 72 and Bush’s victory in 88 provided limited success.

I feel that Obama needs to have the GOP play defensive this election to show the American people that the Dems do care for them, even if they live in the Dakotas or Montana.

By: Tatiana

Tatiana — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:52:41 +0000

Obama winning because of Omaha would be cool but who cares about Nebraska or the Dakotas: if he wins any of these states is there any way he wouldn’t win Ohio or New Mexico or Virginia or Nevada? I think he’s wasting his money spending it in these red states, he needs to make sure he can get to 270 not 470.