You raise good points Partagas. I agree that we shouldn't be so quick to extrapolate a caucus win into carrying a state in November. But it appears, and we all know looks can be deceiving, that Obama can win a few states that went Republican in 2000 & 2004. Whether this plays out, we'll see. But I think Clinton's approach of just trying to win the big states and hoping for a win in either Florida or Ohio is flawed.
Not trying extrapolate at all with caucases. I think those are extremely scewed and should not be looked at all when thinking of November. I mean give me a break -- Obama took kansas with 70% of the caucas -- you think he could carry Kansas?
I think the real question we have here is, which candidate has the most baggage?
If it becomes McCain/Obama this fall...which candidate is representing the party associated with both an economic downturn, the party now even admitting they "sorta" fucked up the planning and staging of the Iraq War, and that conflict going nowhere soon at this rate...
Then you have the GOP, which many disgruntled conservatives can tell you, haven't done jack shit in the last 6 years they had Congress before losing it in 2006 during Bush's Presidency, and they can preach and sermon about how the evil Democrats will raise your taxes....and this time, they just feel empty.
I mean, when Bush is your biggest spending Presidency since LBJ....someone fucked up along the way.
I think Obama could win not simply whatever he's the better candidate or not, but 2008 is a year when the public will be asked, "Do you want a Sequel to Dubya?"
As for Obama/Kansas....again, we're mistaking the forest for the trees.
Obama won't necessarily win red states, but he could threaten them, such traditionally soft GOP turf that McCain will have to spend cash and time to tend fortifications for...and cash is which he is sorely lacking, compared to Dubya the last two elections.
