what would a generic obama victory look like? assuming richardson as veep

[Kushahontas]

idk

[auburntiger]

idk

If Huck is the nominee, that looks about right, though I would give Huckabee Arizona and Missouri (barely), and make Tennessee >50% and LA >50%

Two minorities!

I could vote for Richardson, Obama is a bit left for me.

[JSojourner]

I really can't imagine an Obama-Richardson ticket.  But if that's how it goes, here are the maps. 

Obama-Richardson vs. McCain-Sanford or McCain-Huckabee

Very narrow D win with Colorado, New Hampshire and Ohio being key states. Colorado and New Hampshire could easily swing R.  But Ohio could easily swing D.  I think Obama will be very strong in all the usual swing states of Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Obama-Richardson vs. Huckabee-??

Almost a landslide.  Huckabee might be competetive in some states if he chooses the right running mate.  Tom Ridge, for example, would soften his theocratic edge on social issues.  And he could also open Pennsylvania.  But not enough to make a big difference.

I so hope Huckabee is the GOP nominee, from a purely selfish Democratic perspective.

[MODU]

As I said before, it next to impossible to predict this election.  We can easily see a shift in the way the states vote, especially if Obama goes against Huckabee or Romney (not due to religion but of stances).  Against Huckabee, it would be two populists who are bucking the party norm facing off against each other.  This hasn't happened in modern times.  And as such, with the amount of attention they gather, you can see an unusually high voter turn out.  Theoretically, this would be a good sign for Obama, but with cross-party and independent draw for both, it's tough to say which way it would break.  Against Romney, you have a moderate canidate who can easily pull in moderate independents that would usually go Democratic.  Coupled with his "look" of being presidential and a near endless supply of funding, he could pull in some of New England and possibly one of the Western states at the sake up giving up smaller Southern states to Obama.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I still think we are getting ahead of ourselves. It will be Clinton v. Giuliani or McCain. Huckabee has no legs outside of the south.

Both countries will not nominate left or right wingers. Moderates will be nominated in the end. Obama is simply too left wing to win in a general, even if he is a good speaker.

[MODU]

I still think we are getting ahead of ourselves. It will be Clinton v. Giuliani or McCain. Huckabee has no legs outside of the south.

Both countries will not nominate left or right wingers. Moderates will be nominated in the end. Obama is simply too left wing to win in a general, even if he is a good speaker.

Technically, Obama is to the right of Killary.  She just panders towards the middle.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I still think we are getting ahead of ourselves. It will be Clinton v. Giuliani or McCain. Huckabee has no legs outside of the south.

Both countries will not nominate left or right wingers. Moderates will be nominated in the end. Obama is simply too left wing to win in a general, even if he is a good speaker.

Technically, Obama is to the right of Killary.  She just panders towards the middle.

I know that Hillary is a socialist for sure, but I know that Bill will not let her govern like she really wants. He'll make her govern towards the center. Edwards is a socialist and is campaigning like one.

[Lief 🗽]

I still think we are getting ahead of ourselves. It will be Clinton v. Giuliani or McCain. Huckabee has no legs outside of the south.

Both countries will not nominate left or right wingers. Moderates will be nominated in the end. Obama is simply too left wing to win in a general, even if he is a good speaker.

Technically, Obama is to the right of Killary.  She just panders towards the middle.

I know that Hillary is a socialist for sure, but I know that Bill will not let her govern like she really wants. He'll make her govern towards the center. Edwards is a socialist and is campaigning like one.

LOL, look up the definition of socialist please.

As for the generic Obama victory:

[JSojourner]

I still think we are getting ahead of ourselves. It will be Clinton v. Giuliani or McCain. Huckabee has no legs outside of the south.

Both countries will not nominate left or right wingers. Moderates will be nominated in the end. Obama is simply too left wing to win in a general, even if he is a good speaker.

Technically, Obama is to the right of Killary.  She just panders towards the middle.

I know that Hillary is a socialist for sure, but I know that Bill will not let her govern like she really wants. He'll make her govern towards the center. Edwards is a socialist and is campaigning like one.

Which is the one thing that makes me continue liking Edwards.  :-)

[MODU]

LOL, look up the definition of socialist please.

He's using it correctly.  He's not calling Edwards a communist, but a socialist... one who believes in income redistribution through services for those who are in need (he is campaigning as the person for the poor and working class).  And when you take your mind out of the straight line "leftist" and "rightist" scale, liberals and conservatives cross each other in some points on socialism.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

LOL, look up the definition of socialist please.

He's using it correctly.  He's not calling Edwards a communist, but a socialist... one who believes in income redistribution through services for those who are in need (he is campaigning as the person for the poor and working class).  And when you take your mind out of the straight line "leftist" and "rightist" scale, liberals and conservatives cross each other in some points on socialism.

Actually that isn't what Socialism meant traditionally and certainly not by Marx, Engels or the earlier "utopian Socialists" or etc... It is though what it has come to mean pretty much everywhere because at some point in history Socialism began to equate to "supporting public sector unions".

[MODU]

Actually that isn't what Socialism meant traditionally and certainly not by Marx, Engels or the earlier "utopian Socialists" or etc... It is though what it has come to mean pretty much everywhere because at some point in history Socialism began to equate to "supporting public sector unions".

Yeah, those forms tend to be more towards state ownership and distribution of goods.  In the modern term, goods is replaced with wealth and services, with the older definition giving way to post-Marxist communism.