Party primaries and general elections are two completely different ballgames. There is no valid comparison.
Actually there is. Go back to your Pyle and White “Fundamentals of Accounting”. Turn to the chapter on ‘Cost accounting’ (chapter 7, IIRC. It has been several decades). ANY two things can be compared. On a cost-per-unit (vote) basis if nothing else. Now using those numbers as a means of projecting future votes is completely bogus. But that is true of ANY statistical calculation used to predict human actions. Statistics DON’T predict outcomes, they predict trends. Look it up, Pyle and White again.
ALL the trends are going against Ohhh…BAMA in the general election. That is why I hope he can bluff Billery into quitting. I don’t think he will, but all a paleo-conservative can do in todays environment is hope.
Nobody to give money to, nobody to vote for. All I can do is vote against a candidate. That will be either the half black Marxist or the trailer trash in the pink tent suit, depending on which one the democratic party throws up.

Yes we are. If you think otherwise, you are just as delusional as the Obamamites. Any vote for a 3rd party candidate is the same as a vote for Ohhhh…..BAMA.
Remember how we got Billery in the first place. All those Perot voters did the trick for Slick Willie. I know, I was one of them. Learn from my error.
You might as well just go ahead and vote for Ohhhh….BAMA as for Barr or any of the other nutbags. I call it weasel voting.
Be a good American. Vote against the candidate you hate the most.

No. I did not suggest that. I stated that Rubin’s understanding of Obama’s base is limited to his primary performance and can’t be used to measure his potential in the general election.

In fact the point of my post was that many of Obama’s states are NOT dominated by members of his supposed young, black “elitist” base.

Rubin is simply repeating Hillary’s failed argument. I’m not sure why she even wrote this column.

Party primaries and general elections are two completely different ballgames. There is no valid comparison.

Are you really trying to suggest that Obama can “win” the states you list?

Of non “blue” states, in a general election he MIGHT win Illinois, Hawaii and “Americans Abroad.”

And as an Illinoisan, I wouldn’t even give him Illinois. He’s giving this state a black eye with his racist associations.

She is comparing Obama’s performance in 2008 Democratic primaries to Kerry and Gore’s general election results against a Republican.

This is apples and oranges.

The white Democrats who didn’t vote for Obama in the primaries are still Democrats. To suggest that he has a “white problem” by cherry-picking states that Clinton won is just silly.

Iowa, South Carolina, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah, Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Vermont, U.S. Virgin Islands, Democrats Abroad, Wyoming and Mississippi.

Those are the states won by Obama so far. Would any serious person suggest that these states are represented primarily by blacks, “ultra-liberals” and college students?

This article reminds me of electoral college analysis from May 2004 that showed solid evidence of a John Kerry blowout. Democrats wanted to believe this so badly that they ignored all evidence to the contrary. We all know how that worked out.

People see what they want to see.

In fact, he’ll be lucky to get the vote of Anyone With A Brain.