SuperHornet wrote:Let's just say that if President Obama is having problems winning even the primary in some counties, then he's going to have problems in the general election, regardless of who the GOP nominee is. I have no doubts that he will eventually win the primary. All I'm saying is that this could be an indication of trouble ahead.
We'll leave it at that.
Let me set you straight on a whole host of things (including something that jon got wrong)
1. "obama struggling in Oklahoma primary" isn't being covered much by the media because it isn't a story... Obama didn't "struggle" in Oklahoma... that would imply something was done... there was no effort put forward in the state because there didn't need to be one put forth.
Jon is wrong that there will be "no campaign" in the state - he likely has one staffer in a state like Oklahoma - someone whose job it is to wrangle volunteers and arrange activities to help in more competitive states... they certainly didn't concern themselves with a primary in state where their opponents are quacks. They'll get maybe ONE delegate out of this (out of several thousand to be apportioned throughout the country) - hardly something to boast.
2. Obama has less than zero chance at winning Oklahoma in the general... there are only a few states where Obama will do worse in 2012... Idaho, Utah and Wyoming maybe... so very little effort will be made at all to win.
3. You can extrapolate exactly NOTHING from a few sparsely populated western Oklahoma counties about Obama's chances in 2012 overall.
Reasonable people can disagree about the tea-leaves for November - but extrapolating from this is just... well, it's stupid.