What does it mean that Obama won these red states yesterday: Missouri, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Alaska and North Dakota? Why did Clinton not? Are the Democrats in these red states a different breed, have a different background, different issues? Iowa was a shocker a few weeks ago as well. What do the voters in these states see in Obama that they like?
As both Obama and Clinton agree on virtually every issue, there must be some reason why they chose the novice over the old-timer. Missouri, itself, is an interesting state, and I'm not sure if it was just Sen. McCaskill's endorsement. That state is a harbinger of the sense of the citizens and, as I recall, holds the record of getting it right most often. It was a squeaker, for sure, but Obama won.
Anybody from Missouri want to chime in?
I think of McCain's victories in the blue states, the Northeast, and wonder what that means- the flip side of the Obama wins in the red states. Odd stuff to ponder.
As both Obama and Clinton agree on virtually every issue, there must be some reason why they chose the novice over the old-timer. Missouri, itself, is an interesting state, and I'm not sure if it was just Sen. McCaskill's endorsement. That state is a harbinger of the sense of the citizens and, as I recall, holds the record of getting it right most often. It was a squeaker, for sure, but Obama won.
Anybody from Missouri want to chime in?
I think of McCain's victories in the blue states, the Northeast, and wonder what that means- the flip side of the Obama wins in the red states. Odd stuff to ponder.
