ijwthstd wrote on May 12
th, 2008 at 1:53am:
If the so-called "key states" mattered so much more than the other states, then why bother holding votes there?
Also "Almost all of Hillary's voters more than likely will not vote for Ohbama" is so patently ridiculous. I would say most Democrats in the end will vote for who they are told to. A few might stay home but most Democrats will vote for the Democrat on the ticket.
Like the past few elections, the deciding factor will be a small number of swing voters in a few states such as Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico and New Hampshire.
_____________________________
I see your point by most voters will vote for the Dem if in fact they are a Dem but as of now that is pure speculation. I even agree with you for the most part on this issue but still right now it is speculation (even though the polls are nothing but speculation anyway.)<theres irony for you in my argument eh.
Sure ALL the states matter but when I say "key" I mean the states holding the largest electoral votes which are considered the "big Chip states" in the general. She won all of them. I realize this is not the general and you can't figure she will surely win them in the November election as well but still, she is the stronger candidate in those states by her winning them now. You don't want to replace the runner up in place of the winner in those states do you? You want your strongest person in there for that. By Obahma being the nominee it will be doing just that. A Runner up in the big states as well as the swing states. It is not a wise choice from a strategic standpoint even though he may have a slight delegate lead over-all.
Regardless, you speak of "swing voters" in key states will ultimately decide the general elections fate in that you mention Iowa, Ohio, NM, and NH. Well she won three out of four of those states remember.
This adds to my point exactly. She has the key states and swing states ....what eles can you ask for.
Ian
Pages: 
Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content ) (Read 9,944 times)
