Do We Really Want to Have to Rely on OH & FL to Win the General Election?
|
|
| Also listed in: "We The People" | American Democrats for Obama | Trekkies 4 Life | Jews for Obama |
I have a question for everyone out there. With the voter irregularities (which were caused by republican controlled election apparatus) that occurred in FL & OH in 2000 and do we really want to really require wins in either state in order to win the White House?
My point is quite simple. Clinton must win either FL or OH in order to win the White House. Without winning one of those states she does not win enough electoral college votes to win the Presidency in the General Election. See Link:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr25.html
We know that in 2000 and 2004 both in OH and FL the republicans controlled the election apparatus and were able to give the Republicans a win in a close election in those states. If Clinton does have a lead over McCain in FL or OH, the lead is razor thin, definitely close enough that any voting irregularities will wind up giving the state to the Republicans. Clinton doesn't have any other states to replace a loss of one of these states. So, if she loses even one of them we lose the election.
Do we really want FL & OH to determine whether we win or not?
If not, then how can Clinton be the best General Election candidate for the party as she MUST win ONE of these states in order to win the General Election?
My point is quite simple. Clinton must win either FL or OH in order to win the White House. Without winning one of those states she does not win enough electoral college votes to win the Presidency in the General Election. See Link:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr25.html
We know that in 2000 and 2004 both in OH and FL the republicans controlled the election apparatus and were able to give the Republicans a win in a close election in those states. If Clinton does have a lead over McCain in FL or OH, the lead is razor thin, definitely close enough that any voting irregularities will wind up giving the state to the Republicans. Clinton doesn't have any other states to replace a loss of one of these states. So, if she loses even one of them we lose the election.
Do we really want FL & OH to determine whether we win or not?
If not, then how can Clinton be the best General Election candidate for the party as she MUST win ONE of these states in order to win the General Election?
I really want the Democrats to start finding candidates that can win the GE without OH and FL so that we don't have to allow their "voting irregularities" to determine the outcome of the GE.
It's as though they can't be trusted and thats concerning to me. Divisive stance I take - perhaps - but it needs to be addressed. I know there is no absolutes.
It's been demonstrated in past elections that even when given choices - they counter vote - no matter what the dem nominee does. We seem to keep losing them for one reason or another and no one has ever been able to figure out why.
Hard to determine what will happen.
I just don't want to rely on states that we know are crooked. I want a path to the White House that makes those states and their problems irrelevant.
how many registered voters do they have repub - dem and unaffiliated - anyone know?
The republicans in those two states control the elections pure and simple. Until that problem is resolved the solution is to hope that the Dems will be able to win in those states, but don't count on it and have a plan in place to win without them.