Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[UK]

I should also add that Colorado is a key state as well.

[Diddy]

What I'm hearing is that you like that McCain's people don't mind being inflammatory, derogatory, etc. And it's certainly your right to admire that. It's just a different stance than what I'm used to hearing.

i generally feel that people have become to big of pussies these days, so ya i kind of liked it

[Fat Strat]

Agreed 100%. If MI or PA go to McCain, Ohio will have already been there. McCain will win if he gets either PA or MI given how those two states are leaning towards Obama equating to other swing states shifting towards McCain. Obama can win w/out Ohio, VA, and FL but can't without PA and MI.

This is going to be a tight race. McCain can basically set up show in PA, MI, and OH for the next two months. This is a national election, of course, but it's striking how the country is split along such well defined party lines.

[sighyoung]

Indiana is hugely conservative, but they also have a lot of industries tied to the auto industry. If Obama can play that angle up, there's a small chance he could pull a coup there.

We're considered "in play" by Obama's people. Particularly if Obama maintains a lead or it's a tie in the national polls.

The national polls are getting a lot of talk, but has anyone broken down the state by state polls, and then added up the delegates? Obama's people have mentioned it, but they don't really have to lead the national polls. They need to lead the big delegate states, where I imagine they're doing fairly well.

I just realized that "in play" may also mean "get McCain to waste precious resources in a tight race in late October." Just as Bush forced Kerry to fly out to California days before the 2004 election, I suspect that Obama hopes to force McCain spend resources protecting states that would normally be a lock.

All this is idle speculation, of course.

[clevername]

I really hate the damn electoral college.

[Fat Strat]

What I'm hearing is that you like that McCain's people don't mind being inflammatory, derogatory, etc. And it's certainly your right to admire that. It's just a different stance than what I'm used to hearing.

You really can't act like the democrats haven't used their fair share of inflammatory, derogatory language in recent elections. They put a no-holds-barred smear campaign on Bush the last eight years, and it's not like democratic party hacks have been mincing words against McCain or Palin.

[TimeForGuinness]

What I'm hearing is that you like that McCain's people don't mind being inflammatory, derogatory, etc. And it's certainly your right to admire that. It's just a different stance than what I'm used to hearing.

You really can't act like the democrats haven't used their fair share of inflammatory, derogatory language in recent elections. They put a no-holds-barred smear campaign on Bush the last eight years, and it's not like democratic party hacks have been mincing words against McCain or Palin.

Can you give me three good things that Bush has done over the last 8 years for this country? I'm not trying to bash the guy, but I don't see a whole lot of good.

[Popeye_Card]

Indiana is hugely conservative, but they also have a lot of industries tied to the auto industry. If Obama can play that angle up, there's a small chance he could pull a coup there.

We're considered "in play" by Obama's people. Particularly if Obama maintains a lead or it's a tie in the national polls.

The national polls are getting a lot of talk, but has anyone broken down the state by state polls, and then added up the delegates? Obama's people have mentioned it, but they don't really have to lead the national polls. They need to lead the big delegate states, where I imagine they're doing fairly well.

I think both sides are kinda avoiding it, because right now it looks like a huge lead for Obama.

Obama's camp doesn't want to look like they're take anything for granted, or do anything to make McCain look like a scrappy underdog.

McCain's camp doesn't want to look like it's futile at this point.

FWIW, I don't think there's any way Obama wins Indiana, but it's interesting that the polling is close. Dems always have to watch polling because their voters have a tendency to not show up as strongly on election day as Republican voters.

[GatewaySnayke]

But, again, what are the democrats going to say? Can they really attack McCain because Guiliani thinks that Obama's inexperienced? Romney lied about such and such? Neither of those guys are running for office so it doesn't make their comments any different than any comments that any democrat has made against McCain at any point in recent history.

Yes, and they should. The entire convention was dedicated to attacking the media and pissing on Obama. It's not like I'm saying they are going to start running ads, but when Obama and the Fellowship of Surrogates start repeating all the ignorant stuff, it may stick, it may get the supporters even more charged or it may do nothing. But to say that Guiliani breaking out in laughter doesn't give Obama's campaign ammunition is wrong. They were speaking on McCain's behalf.

[Socnorb11]

What I'm hearing is that you like that McCain's people don't mind being inflammatory, derogatory, etc. And it's certainly your right to admire that. It's just a different stance than what I'm used to hearing.

You really can't act like the democrats haven't used their fair share of inflammatory, derogatory language in recent elections. They put a no-holds-barred smear campaign on Bush the last eight years, and it's not like democratic party hacks have been mincing words against McCain or Palin.

I'm not really concerned about the 2004 election. I don't ride a ticket from election to election.

If you watched the Democratic convention last week, I'm sure you'd agree that there wasn't anything nearly as inflammatory as what we've seen this week.