`Expands west' vs. `Traditional map weakness necessitates looking elsewhere'

How long after Obama is the presumptive nominee (i.e. after June 4th) will it take for the media to change its tune from 'Obama expands the electoral map to the west' to 'Obama's weakness in traditional and swing states necessitates capturing several hard to attain western states'?

Tags: electoral map, Swing State, weakness, west (all tags)

Comments

15 Comments

Re: `Expands west'

This is a comment, not a diary.

by TomP 2008-05-28 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: `Expands west'

agreed.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-05-28 02:30PM | 0 recs
Wasted diary space.

by SocialDem 2008-05-28 02:31PM | 0 recs
2 line diary?

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-28 02:32PM | 0 recs
The answer can be found

here

by bobdoleisevil 2008-05-28 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: `Expands west' vs. `Traditional map weakness n

Because changing the country and creating a Democratic majority in previously ignored states is a bad thing...?

I can't figure out why Dean's 50-State strategy became a pariah after is started working. I've been saying for years: it's about damn time the electoral map had a dramatic shake-up.

by not Brit 2008-05-28 02:34PM | 0 recs
Oh goody

A "new map" diary. I love this subject! It's so freakin ridiculous....Obama doesn't need WV, Obama doesn't need FL either; he has a new map!

by soyousay 2008-05-28 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: `Expands west' vs. `Traditional map weakness n

Actually, this was meant as a commentary on the likely change in media language after Obama is the presumptive nominee.  My bet that it is relatively quick and dramatic, as the more common role of the media is to fret rather than trumpet.

Any other thoughts?

by Liame 2008-05-28 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: `Expands west' vs. `Traditional map weakness

On the trusty troll-o-meter this guy rates an 8.

by Why Not 2008-05-28 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: `Expands west' vs. `Traditional map weakness

When do I turn to stone?  I guess now I should try and discredit you in front of your peers.  What have you done wrong that I can use against you? :)

Wikipedia --

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often erroneously used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem.

Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts -- hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".[9]

Frequently, someone who has been labelled a troll by a group may seek to redeem their reputation by discrediting their opponents, for example by claiming that other members of the group are closed-minded, conspirators, or trolls themselves.

by Liame 2008-05-28 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: `Expands west' vs. `Traditional map weakness

As you said above, "The term troll is highly subjective"

This is a one line diary:  `Expands west' vs. `Traditional map weakness necessitates looking elsewhere'

Where you claim that: the media narrative is going to change from Obama's expansion of the map to the weakness of the core democratic states.

This statement contribues to the fallacy that this problem is of Obama's making.  We haven't won in Ohio and Florida in two cycles, and Obama becoming the presumtive nominee doesn't change the fact that those will still be battleground states that trend Republican.  What is important is that neither Obama, nor Clinton, should pin Democratic hopes on a twice failed strategy.  This strategy is pure folly. Democrats (and Obama in particular) will win when we are strong everywhere not just in swing states that we've lost in the past.  

Obama's argument is that VA, CO, NM, IA, even MO can provide more EVs than FL or OH (which are winnable with Obama).  These states haven't trended democratic in some time, but now they are in play.  Even states that were conisidered deep red are coming into play because of this strategy.  A well funded, well organized campain can, and will win under those circumstances.

The problem isn't the strategy, it is this post.  All this post really is a call to get people to think "gee Obama is weak in core states" and therefore cannot win the election.  This motto is presumtuous and utterly false.  

Furthermore attempting to contribue to said fallacy on a democratic site is counter to the reason people come to a Democratic site. To promote and further the Demcratic causes such as electing a president.  Hence the term "troll" may be subjectively applied here, to this very thread.

My previous comment, was really all that was needed to eplain all of that.  Recently there has been a large influx of new posters coming on here with the explicit purpose to stir some "stuff" up.  To upset or to cause undue hatred between the two main groups of democrats right now.  If you are not one of these people I duly appologize.

However, this post, I think, was trending in that
direction.  I just called it like I saw it.  I am sorry if I offended you.  Perhaps you will add this to a discussion about this topic in the future rather than make a one line diary with the intention to stir some "stuff" up.

by Why Not 2008-05-28 10:17PM | 0 recs
Re: `Expands west' vs. `Traditional map weakness

No offense taken, perhaps puzzlement and then amusement.

I disagree with your latter argument.

Clinton is safer electoral candidate with more upside?
by Liame, Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:34:52 AM EST

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/29/1034 52/725

by Liame 2008-05-29 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Media approach once presumptive nominee

Perhaps I am the only one anticipating realignment to traditional hand wringing by the media.  That's my prediction anyway.  Maybe I should troll myself!

by Liame 2008-05-28 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Media approach once presumptive nominee

No, because in the "real" world many people agree with you. :)

by grlpatriot 2008-05-29 05:34AM | 0 recs
msnbc=never

by nikkid 2008-05-28 06:26PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads