home

Electability And The 50 State Strategy

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:41:04 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Anybody can find a poll that says anything. NJDem just found this Ras poll that says Hillary wins NJ easily over McCain while Obama loses to McCain.

My own view is that no Dem loses New Jersey. My concerns are in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida. But when you hear about Obama's real advantages in Colorado and Virginia, remember that there are 50 different elections in a Presidential general election. Some of them are contested. like Ohio, PA and MI. Some are not, like Texas, Utah, North Dakota and Idaho. Much to the dismay of many Left bloggers, there will be no 50 state strategy in the Presidential election this November.

< Obama No Lieberman? Sure, But What Is the Unifying Theory? | Continuing A Theme: The Obama Rorschach Test >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Electability And The 50 State Strategy | 164 comments (164 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I think the idea that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:46:56 PM EST
    runs any better than Hillary is a myth waiting to be destroyed. In the EV rich states, Hillary has a distinct edge.

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:49:15 PM EST
    Colorado, Iowa, NM and Nevada are not chopped liver.

    But he needs to sharpen his message to be in a better place in OH, PA and MI.

    And apparently, NJ and MA.

    [ Parent ]

    PA (none / 0) (#22)
    by chrisvee on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:05:36 PM EST
    I'm very concerned about PA.  I'm wondering, for example, what will happen in the Philadelphia suburbs.  Are they Obama country or will McCain exert a strong appeal?

    [ Parent ]
    John McCain's new best friend: Jim Gerlach (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:11:12 PM EST
    You better believe that McCain can win in the Philly suburbs. This is one case where tying him to the failed war strategy will be key.

    [ Parent ]
    From my experience, many Pennsylvanians (none / 0) (#58)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:24:21 PM EST
    have warm fuzzy feelings about McCain.  If it's a fight for independents, there is going to have to be definite negative branding against McCain and his policies.  When, if, it comes down to Obama and McCain, he is going to have to tone down the Unity shtick a LOT.  McCain will beat him on that count.  What in Obama's arsenal makes him good against McCain?  I think moderates have a fairly pleasant and relatively long held image of McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    50 States: Really? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Athena on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:17:29 PM EST
    How come the 50-state strategy doesn't apply to the primaries?  

    The bloggers are hell-bent on truncating the primary season before all of the voters have weighed in.

    [ Parent ]

    won't win philly burbs (none / 0) (#112)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:05:51 PM EST
    the issue isn't who wins or loses in the philly burbs, its how much of a margin philadelphia and its suburbs give the Democratic candidate.

    Kerry won in PA by 144,000 vote because the region went for Kerry by 519K votes.  Pennsylvania is predominately a red state, with the Philadelphia region being its only truly
    blue" area (even allegheny county -- pittsburgh -- is only light blue.)

     

    [ Parent ]

    Philly Burbs (none / 0) (#136)
    by chrisvee on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:08:15 PM EST
    the issue isn't who wins or loses in the philly burbs, its how much of a margin philadelphia and its suburbs give the Democratic candidate.
    That's my concern -- I would expect that he'll win the city big, but if he doesn't play in the suburbs, perhaps he won't have the margin to overcome the vast red middle of the state.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm actually more concerned... (none / 0) (#143)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:29:05 PM EST
    about how Obama does in places like Northeast Philly and other non-Center City 'white' areas of Philadelphia -- you know, the parts of the city that gave us Frank Rizzo?

    There is still a great deal of racism in those areas -- and its far more intense than it is in the suburbs.  

    [ Parent ]

    Colorado, NM, VA and Nevada (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:14:02 PM EST
    are the garnish. Iowa, of course, Gore won. What we really need are the Kerry states plus Ohio.

    Obama is not such a map changer that he can make Ohio irrelevant. If he changes NJ, CT, or MA to red, we have a serious problem. And from the latest polls, he appears more likely to do that than Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't need Ohio... (none / 0) (#31)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:21:14 PM EST
    ...we need to Kerry states plus Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa - that makes 273, and a win.

    Of course, Ohio in the Democratic column should seal the deal.

    [ Parent ]

    Current head-to-head polling... (none / 0) (#34)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:24:50 PM EST
    ...I'm sure doesn't so much reflect McCain's strength as the uncertainty surrounding the Democratic nomination.  When Clinton or Obama become the nominees, they will almost certainly do better in these polls against McCain.

    And let's not forget:  over the next six months the economic situation will continue to deteriorate, gas prices will remain high, inflation will go up - we've only begun to feel the pinch.  While it'd be nice not to rely on the economy to win, the fact is that such issues will almost certainly benefit the Democratic candidate. Barring another terrorist attack, John McCain is making a huge mistake if he thinks he wins this on foreign policy.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, you want to run (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:30:27 PM EST
    on the Gephardt "bread and butter" model (incidentally, Hillary seems prone to this too).

     I think Democrats need to challange the Republican foreign policy head on, particularly with respect to Iraq. Of course, as BTD often points out, we've gambled a fair bit of that away by not defunding the war.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you run on both... (none / 0) (#46)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:38:49 PM EST
    ...but voters now list the economy, health care, and other bread and butter issues at the top of their list.  Just wait until unemployment hits 6% later this year, gas prices near $4, and inflation eats away at disposable income.  Sure, national security will be important - but both Hillary and Obama can hold their own there.  But McCain will be at a huge disadvantage when it comes to the economy.

    [ Parent ]
    well....we're waiting for it to be destroyed (none / 0) (#8)
    by coigue on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:48:11 PM EST
    but it doesn't seem to be occurring.

    [ Parent ]
    Um (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:50:03 PM EST
    that occurs in a GE. If Obama is not the nominee, it will never be destroyed.

    If he wins, let's hope it is not destroyed.

    [ Parent ]

    I was speaking on the assumption (none / 0) (#21)
    by coigue on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:04:38 PM EST
    that the primary actually is a measure of how it will go in the general...which is a flawed assumption, I admit.

    Perhaps the superdelegates will save us from ourselves (said in a very snarky voice).

    Obama's biggest problem in the general, I think, is that the Democrats aren't going to count Michigan and Florida. These two swing states will be pissed off because they wanted Hillary. (I believe you have written on this point and that we agree)

    [ Parent ]

    The problem (none / 0) (#26)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:12:46 PM EST
    ...with Michigan is that he was not even on the ballot.  My friends and family in MI (my home state) crossed over to vote for Senator McCain because Governor Huckabee freaked them out and they despised Governor Romney.  Reading Michigan as pro-Senator Clinton (particularly in light of the fact that slightly over 14% of the population is African-American) is just dishonest.

    [ Parent ]
    So Obama elects not to be on the ballot (none / 0) (#59)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:24:25 PM EST
    and Hillary's supporters are being "dishonest" for saying she would win the state? No one (except his advisors) tolds him to take his name off the ballot. Hillary runs well in states like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Since Obama elected not to be on the ballot, I'll just go with the conventiopnal wisdom. Particularly since more than one observer thinks the reason he took his name off in Michigan and not Florida is that he knew he would lose Michigan, but this way he gets people like you yelling "no fair."

    [ Parent ]
    You know... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:35:56 PM EST
    ...just stop it.  Senator McCain is popular in Michigan, too.  In case you forgot, he won the 2000 primary there.  The economy cost him voters in 2008, but Michigan is a pretty conservative state.  Just because it (barely) went Democratic in 2000 and 2004 (campaigns, btw, that I worked on heavily) does not mean you get to just take it for granted.  The state has a lot of demographics that would favor Senator Obama, including a larger percentage of African American and Arabic voters.  

     He was not the only one who removed his name...or did you forget about that? Like I said, my family and friends in Michigan (where I lived for 22 years) and they mostly wanted to vote for Senator Edwards.  But they crossed over and voted for Senator McCain to prevent Governors Huckabee and Romney from winning.  You can see it in the participation in the Democratic Primary versus the participation in the opposition party's primary.  Now, most of them support Senator Obama.  

     Here's an idea: halve the delegates and seat them or, better yet, have a caucus so that we can see where Michigan voters stand in a real vote.  

    [ Parent ]

    Please not another caucus (none / 0) (#107)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:37:38 PM EST
    Unless there are extended hours and one can just vote and leave.

    [ Parent ]
    Discussions of MI and FL delegates are OT (none / 0) (#111)
    by cymro on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:05:40 PM EST
    This thread is about GE electability, not about the primary contest.

    [ Parent ]
    Relevant... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:16:28 PM EST
    ...to this discussion, because we do not have a fair indication of how either candidate would do in a contested race in two of the largest battleground states.  The only large battleground information we have is Missouri, Virginia, Iowa and New Hampshire (which should not be a battleground state but will be because of Senator McCain).  A new contest would be the best way to get that kind of information.

     As an aside, we will be seeing a major redrawing of the political map this year.  We have a) an extremely unpopular president, b) dissatisfaction with Congress, c) a Republican opponent popular with independents and some Democrats, but unpopular among conservatives, d) large turnout in primaries, e) changing political demographics in the West, f) an unpopular and problematic war...  

     I just don't know that you can accurately determine the real battlegrounds in 2008 at this stage.  

    [ Parent ]

    You have explained my point (none / 0) (#155)
    by cymro on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:35:40 PM EST
    If:

    we do not have a fair indication of how either candidate would do in a contested race, (and) ... a new contest would be the best way to get that kind of information

    ... then why did you post:

    Here's an idea: halve the delegates and seat them or, better yet, have a caucus

    Neither of those proposals will give you the information you are looking for. That's why I pointed out that that aspect of your post (not the entire post) was off topic.

    [ Parent ]

    Fair enough.. (none / 0) (#163)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:43:04 AM EST
    ...I am open to a primary if it is feasible.  I thought halving the delegates was a fair enough compromise, but if a primary can be conducted I would support it wholeheartedly.  I just thought that there were problems with holding primaries because of the role of sate legislatures.  Am I wrong? Admittedly, I could be. I'm no expert on election law.

    [ Parent ]
    it's only dishonest if I am (none / 0) (#166)
    by coigue on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:58:00 AM EST
    saying it in spite of my true beliefs....which I am not.

    [ Parent ]
    the problem is (none / 0) (#167)
    by coigue on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:59:31 AM EST
    he went against the wishes of MI voters by electing not to be on the ballot.

    Clearly the DNC screwed up by overreacting to this issue. It's FUBAR.

    [ Parent ]

    Michigan voters (none / 0) (#169)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:55:27 AM EST
    Went for McCain over GWB in the 2000 primary, so he still has a following.

    I think if Hillary is the nominee, she wins the state - the governor and many state dems are behind her.  

    If Barack is the nominee, but doesn't seat the delegates, the state will go for McCain.  It's a pretty even state, but with a bad economy, it won't take much to tip them to the Republican column.  

    Yeah, a lot of people didn't vote in the primary (but that was there choice - they could have voted "uncommitted" like the Obama and Edwards camps encouraged them to do), or they voted to play spoiler in the R's primary (again, their choice), but HRC was going to win the state anyway (which is one of the reasons why Obama and Edwards took their names off the ballot in the first place)

    [ Parent ]

    I don't understand why you say this: (none / 0) (#175)
    by coigue on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:34:55 PM EST
     
    with a bad economy, it won't take much to tip them to the Republican column

    This goes against conventional wisdom. Dems are favored with pocketbook issues.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:58:21 PM EST
    I hope you are right about NJ, but just in case, we moved across the river to NJ this weekend.  Our family stands poised to deliver two more precious votes for the Democratic nominee in November.

    NJ at least has more chance of being competitive than NY!

    Thanks for the HT! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:13:42 PM EST
    and obviously I meant "in my VIEW" not my "few" :)

    I do find it unlikely that NJ goes red, and I agree the states you point to are more in play.  But they are considered more purple than blue--and that's the problem this poll illustrates.

    Generally speaking, I think we should all keep in mind that poll posted that other day showing (well before November) that Dukakis had something like a 30 points lead ahead of Bush.    

    Let's please not forget Dukakis! (none / 0) (#37)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:28:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    you mean (none / 0) (#39)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:31:12 PM EST
    this?

    [ Parent ]
    Bu the flip side of that (none / 0) (#125)
    by fuzzyone on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:41:57 PM EST
    is that there is no reason to think such a rout can't happen again in the other direction. Clinton is not capable of pulling it off.  Obama might be.  That is why a 50 state strategy makes sense with him. It may be a long shot but you got to be in it to win it.

    [ Parent ]
    if obama's the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:27:57 PM EST
    and he doesn't improve among catholics, we are in trouble.

    And do you know where? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:34:22 PM EST
    PA!

    [ Parent ]
    Looks like where social-justice Catholics (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:45:39 PM EST
    are stronger. (In Wisconsin, where this says he pulled half of them, there is a real split -- as it now is predominantly very conservative Catholics. Of course, the Catholic church in Wisconsin and in this country has trended more that way as liberal Catholics left it. And Wisconsin is very low in Latinos/as -- who seem, from their parishes that I know in Wisconsin, to still be strongly influenced by the liberation theology of the social-justice Catholicism of better days.)

    [ Parent ]
    don't worry (none / 0) (#49)
    by Nasarius on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:40:52 PM EST
    John McCain will take care of that for him. When I agree with Bill Donohue, I think that implies a pretty broad spectrum of Catholics who would never support McCain once the Hagee story really gets around.

    [ Parent ]
    I fail to understand the reason to think that (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by athyrio on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    Obama will improve, because when the negative press hits him, his numbers will go down, not to mention the many democrats that already don't trust him...

    Ranks of Losers (none / 0) (#94)
    by Athena on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:44:06 PM EST
    And Kerry's endorsement will prove prophetic - as Obama joins him is the losers column.

    [ Parent ]
    By that logic... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:47:51 PM EST
    ...did General Clark damn her chances with his primary endorsement?  The same General Clark who voted for Reagan in the 1980s? (just want to make sure y'all remembered that one before blasting attempts to bring Republicans into the next administration)

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#148)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:49:42 PM EST
    Linc Chafee and MARKOS voted for Reagan in the 80s.

    Funny effing comment.

    [ Parent ]

    Hey... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:12:56 PM EST
    ...I voted for General Clark in the 2004 primary. ;-)

     Just sayin.

    [ Parent ]

    I completely disagree about New Jersey ... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:38:53 PM EST
    I've argued for months that McCain will play better than Obama there.

    I live in NYC and have spent tons of time in NJ.  Obama is the kind of politician that New Jersey doesn't like.  While McCain is just the type of Republican they do like.

    Now I finally have some evidence.

    Combine this poll with the SUSA Poll that showed McCain within two points of Obama in MASS, and I will say again ... Obama is going to be weak in the NE.

    We lose NJ and MASS and it is over.

    We need to aggressively campaign in NJ and MASS and we lose are chances in swing states.

    Obama's already weak in OH and PA.  He's going to lose FL.

    The Electoral College map for this guy just looks like a disaster.

    Regardless (none / 0) (#48)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:40:37 PM EST
    NJ is a Democratic machine state.  It has very little to do with personalities or political style.

    McCain will certainly attract some support in NJ with his reformer credentials, but the Republican ALWAYS runs as a reformer in NJ.  Yet the Dems keep winning election after election.

    [ Parent ]

    It's an argument ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:50:29 PM EST
    but I still think the McCain/Obama match-up plays perfectly for McCain in NJ, where he can cut into some of Obama's key strengths (upper class suburbanites, say, like around Montclair, Mountain Lakes, etc.), and his key weaknesses, working class white Dems.

    Add to that the crippling media buys, if the race continues to poll this way, and it's troubling.

    Remember Corzine spent $62 million to win there.

    I don't care how much Obama can raise, if has to spend $60 million of it in NJ, we're in trouble.

    [ Parent ]

    agreed (none / 0) (#68)
    by joei on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:31:51 PM EST

    this country at the heart of it all is conservative, may be not as much as the one elected the current president.

    one big red flag is the fact that the huffington's and dailykos of this world are so enthusiastic about obama and exactly the same reason he will be a disaster in GE.

    all mccain needs to do is take his straight talk express to PA and park it, it will more or less seal the deal

    [ Parent ]

    And with the press telling ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:09:55 PM EST
    everyone that McCain is the greatest war hero this side of George Washington on a daily basis, and Mr. Speech-I-Gave-Six-Years-Ago hasn't got a chance.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama Undermines 50-State Strategy (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:30:40 PM EST
    Ironically, by embracing the 50-state strategy for his primary run, Obama has undermined it for the Democratic party on the local level, which I agree is the key level.  How has he done this?  He has deliberately run a campaign that, with the exception of African Americans, is less dependent on base Democratic voters.  Indeed, in many states it was Republicans and Independents who provided the margin of Obama's victory.  In addition, he has added young voters, which may or may not be good depending on whether they stick around to work for other candidates or are simply about Obama.

    At the same time, by relying so much on Republicans and independents, he appears to have alienated older democrats and female democrats, at least those that are the most politically active.  Many of these folks are the ones who year in and year out do the hard work of building the local party.  States do not change - and will not change - from red to purple to blue because of one transformational candidate.  They change because of the work put into them every year by hard-core democrats.  Many of whom, Obama and his supporters have dismissed in his run towards the nomination.  In so doing, they not only risk the general election, they risk alienating critical assets in party building.

    States do change and have changed (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Maggie on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:33:22 PM EST
    on the basis of transformational candidates.  Look at the electoral map going back more than an election or two and you will see that it's constantly shifting.

    And a lot of the big shifts involve re-alignments.  Reagan certainly alienated the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party, but he expanded it in other directions.  The result was a shift in power from the D's to the R's.

    Not saying this will happen with Obama.  He doesn't have the sort of clear ideological message that Reagan had.  But he's picking up on wide-spread unhappiness with the political status quo, and that does mean that all bets are off.

    My own gut says that Obama will win the GE rather handily unless there's a major military/international crisis.  He will make McCain look old and bumbling.  And he's shown in the last few weeks that he is quite adept at turning aside negative attacks on him.  

    [ Parent ]

    Transfromational change (none / 0) (#170)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:59:56 AM EST
    I could be wrong, but I don't think states have necessarily changed from "transformational" candidates - I think it's more a product of population shifts (more Northerners from blue states  moving to the south and southwest).

    But I could be wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with you wholeheartedly. (none / 0) (#72)
    by sas on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:49:37 PM EST
    There are lots of centrist Democrats here in PA who Obama has alienated.  

    [ Parent ]
    PA (none / 0) (#88)
    by Athena on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:21:18 PM EST
    Yes, indeed.  And robbing them of their primary doesn't help either.

    Plus, PA is a closed primary - which would sharply test strength among the base - unlike Ohio and Texas.

    [ Parent ]

    Agree -- for example, I am not going to donate (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:57:58 PM EST
    to my member of Congress again, nor to many of my state Dems. (And if McCain ends up in charge of our economy, I'm going to need every penny I get.:-)

    [ Parent ]
    OK so what are the costs and benefits (none / 0) (#1)
    by coigue on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:42:48 PM EST
    and risks of such a strategy?

    Which strategy? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:45:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    the 50 state strategy (none / 0) (#7)
    by coigue on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:47:19 PM EST
    and no, I did not read "crashing the gates"

    [ Parent ]
    The 50 State Strategy (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:53:14 PM EST
    has very little to do with Presidential elections.

    Please read my post on Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy published at this site last year.

    Despite what you NOW read from Ari Berman and the now foolish Markos, Obama's general election campaign will have nothing to do with a 50 state strategy.


    [ Parent ]

    OK, I need new glasses (none / 0) (#15)
    by coigue on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    I read your diary and thought you said there WOULD be a 50 state strategy.

    So I was wondering why Left bloggers were dismayed at that.

    Sorry.

    [ Parent ]

    Someone was telling me how (none / 0) (#2)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:43:17 PM EST
    great it is that Obama will have an office in Idaho, a couple days ago.
    Yeah, that will make McCain waste LOTS of money.. right.

    erm (none / 0) (#5)
    by coigue on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:46:50 PM EST
    if Obama has the money, he should do it. This will build up the party. BTD is always complaining about Obama not "sticking up" for the party. This is a great way for him to do so.

    [ Parent ]
    An Obama office in Idaho (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:51:33 PM EST
    does not build up the Idaho Democratic Party.

    It helped Obama win the Idaho caucus.

    14,000 Dem caucusgoers in February mean nothing.

    Obama will never again step foot in Idaho.

    Building up local parties must be done at the local level.

    [ Parent ]

    asdf (none / 0) (#17)
    by coigue on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:00:35 PM EST
    building up local parties must be done at the local level.

    I agree with you on this, but it is good to get some recognition and help from the higher ups in the party.

    [ Parent ]

    Do not expect it int the GE (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    Obama will need to fight battles he can win.

    [ Parent ]
    if he continues to pull in... (none / 0) (#84)
    by jor on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:09:29 PM EST
    ... the absurd amounts of $$$ that he is currently pulling in. He will have more than enough to spare on some futile battles. Even if he can not win some red/purple-states, he can force McCain to play defense (who at the moment, can't raise any $$).

    [ Parent ]
    Not if he continues to look weak ... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:16:01 PM EST
    in states like NJ and Mass with top level media markets.

    The burn rate on Obama's GE campaign could be huge.

    Plus message control will be hard if he's being beaten by a Republican in Red States.

    [ Parent ]

    fyi (none / 0) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:35:11 PM EST
    You are suspended for today and Monday. Do not comment anymore for the next 2 days.

    [ Parent ]
    2 other recent polls had Obama losing (none / 0) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:44:20 PM EST
    Missouri and Pennsylvania. They aren't by major companies though. You can find them by going to Google Blog and typing in "McCain Obama Missouri" and McCain Obama Pennsylvania".

    Rasmussen also has Obama down 5 points on McCain in it's national poll.

    I have a feeling... (none / 0) (#16)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:59:20 PM EST
    ...that if Obama or Clinton clinches the nomination, as McCain has done, both of their numbers will improve in head-to-head polling. I think the still uncertain state of the race is holding them both back a bit in these polls against McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    i agree (none / 0) (#18)
    by coigue on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:00:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What frustrates me most... (none / 0) (#27)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:13:08 PM EST
    ...is that this election shouldn't even be a question mark. I mean, given Bush's approval, right-track/wrong-track, the state of the economy, the war in Iraq, gas prices, and the fact that Americans frequently like to change parties after one has been in power for a while, it's amazing that this isn't a done deal. Add to that the general demoralization, division, and weakness of the Republicans this year. I really though when this cycle started that by this point the only big question would be how much the Democrats would pad their majorities in the House and Senate. I was expecting the nominee to basically spend most of his or her time boosting Congressional candidates and targeting states like Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas.

    But the fact is that the Democrats have come down to two very exciting, but also very risky, general election candidates, while the Republicans have settled (if only because the conservative vote was split) on by far and away their most electable candidate.  

    2008 should have (and might still) bring a realignment of huge proportions.  But it's shaping up to be a close election, and frankly, given what should be enormous Democratic advantages this year, that frustrates me to no end!

    [ Parent ]

    You are (none / 0) (#79)
    by sas on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:02:21 PM EST
    right - this election should not even be a question mark.

    McCain is probably the only Republican who can win for them, since he is somewhat of an independent in his own party, who is percieved as wanting to do the "right" thing as opposed to the political thing.

    Also, the Democratic party itself has alienated some of it's key supporters (me included).  I totally oppose the way certain states were excluded (Fla and Michigan), the way in one state you can vote twice( Texas-a primary and a caucus on the same day), the way one state can have a caucus (Washington) where all delegates are awarded, and several weeks later have a meaningless primary, the way super delegates will end up deciding this thing.

    I have never seen, or never realized, what a mish - mosh it all is.  

    At times I have been so frustrated at the whole process, that I, like Donna Brazile, have considered quitting the party and registering as an independent.

    I also read the blogs and see so much infighting between Clinton and Obama camps, that I don't believe it will ever heal.

    [ Parent ]

    You are (none / 0) (#80)
    by sas on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:03:04 PM EST
    right - this election should not even be a question mark.

    McCain is probably the only Republican who can win for them, since he is somewhat of an independent in his own party, who is percieved as wanting to do the "right" thing as opposed to the political thing.

    Also, the Democratic party itself has alienated some of it's key supporters (me included).  I totally oppose the way certain states were excluded (Fla and Michigan), the way in one state you can vote twice( Texas-a primary and a caucus on the same day), the way one state can have a caucus (Washington) where all delegates are awarded, and several weeks later have a meaningless primary, the way super delegates will end up deciding this thing.

    I have never seen, or never realized, what a mish - mosh it all is.  

    At times I have been so frustrated at the whole process, that I, like Donna Brazile, have considered quitting the party and registering as an independent.

    I also read the blogs and see so much infighting between Clinton and Obama camps, that I don't believe it will ever heal.

    [ Parent ]

    Right (none / 0) (#99)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:03:09 PM EST
    I agree that McCain is an ideal candidate for Republicans at this time.  Some of them might need to bring a little paper bag to the polls when they vote for him, but he has a really positive reputation in the American mainstream.  So how is Obama going to fight him?  By being MORE bipartisan?  There's a contradiction in the center of his electability argument.  Is he going to negatively brand McCain only as regards Bush-Cheney?  Can he negatively brand McCain WITHOUT negatively branding the Republicans, some of whom right now are supposedly on his side?  

    I spoke to my mom tonight about McCain and told her that people in PA have a pretty good feeling about him (as they do about Arlen Specter).  She said, that's true, but he's a Republican, so that's one strike against him for me.  Will Obama be able to drive that home to voters?  If he chooses to emphasize only that McCain is Bush the Third, will that stick?  I grew up in PA and remember the wistful admiration many had for McCain there.  I really don't think it's dead.

    [ Parent ]

    And this shows why Republicans ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:22:18 PM EST
    are brilliant and Dems are not.

    They can only win this year by nominating someone like McCain.  Who do they nominate?

    We could win with almost anyone except someone seen as too risky.  Who does it look like we're going to nominate?  

    A guy who was in the Illinois state senate four years ago.  And who's foreign policy experience (by his own admission) is living overseas while he was in grade school, having a dad from Kenya, and a speech he gave six years ago in Chicago.

    Next to moron in the dictionary is the Democratic Party logo.

    [ Parent ]

    I thought this in 2004 but this year (none / 0) (#116)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:26:25 PM EST
    I think moron is being too kind.

    "Next to moron in the dictionary is the Democratic Party logo. "

    [ Parent ]

    Robot... (none / 0) (#118)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:34:15 PM EST
    ...you could also say we're going to nominate a 1 1/2 term senator from New York who started off this campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in recent memory and is arguably the one force that will bring a demoralized and divided Republican party together.

    Both Clinton and Obama are risky candidates.

    [ Parent ]

    I could have said that ... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:37:15 PM EST
    but I think you just did.

    But if you think the risk of Clinton and Obama is equal, I've got a bridge to sell you.

    [ Parent ]

    No, I don't think the risk is entirely equal... (none / 0) (#127)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:46:26 PM EST
    ...I think Hillary with her high negatives and ability to unite the Republican party and voters - and her slightly poorer performance in most head-to-head polls - is slightly more risky. Not a lot, but a little bit - and again, most polls (not all) seem to suggest that.

    [ Parent ]
    But Obama polling behind or ... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:52:18 PM EST
    close in NJ and MASS will put a burn rate on his campaign that even his fundraising abilities can't keep up with.

    (And if we lose either of those states, we're done.)

    Plus, recent polls have shown Obama's negatives close to Hillary.  One poll showed them 43/46.

    Hillary's negs are about as high as they're gonna get.  Obama's?  The sky's the limit.

    Obama's electability arguments is fading.

    And just as a simple fact, he's riskier.  No one really knows what he will do. Hillary you pretty much know.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think it is "a simple fact"... (none / 0) (#138)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:33:15 PM EST
    ...I'm willing to concede they're both risky, and I think Hillary's a bit riskier for the reasons I mentioned above.

    I wish I had the confidence that you have to say "it's a simple fact."  Nothing in this race is a "simple fact."

    So again, I would never say "it's a simple fact" that Obama is less risky than Clinton.  I would just say that enough evidence leads me to think he's a little less risky.  A poll out of New Jersey (which will vote Democratic) and one outlier suggesting Obama's negatives are just as high as Clinton's is not enough to convince me of what to you is so plainly a "simple fact."

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, maybe that was poorly ... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:44:32 AM EST
    phrased.  I just meant what he's more of a governing risk, because he's still an unknown quantity.

    I think the risk in NJ is real.  I argued this before the poll.  And before that poll everyone laughed at me.

    He might fight and pull it out, but it's going to burn a huge hunk of cash.

    Hillary's Kerry state weaknesses are in cheaper states.

    But the truth is we can't run both campaigns, so we'll never know who was more right.    

    [ Parent ]

    It might be a done deal (none / 0) (#168)
    by coigue on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:05:39 AM EST
    but if we run our campaign like it is we are complete idiots.

    [ Parent ]
    He'd better. Because as it stands now, even (none / 0) (#24)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:06:34 PM EST
    winning Virginia, Ohio and Colorado, he loses the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama... (none / 0) (#30)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:19:44 PM EST
    ...hangs on to everything Kerry did and wins Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada, it will be a tie. 269-269.  Add on Colorado, and Obama wins, 278-253. Take away New Mexico, he still wins, 273-258.

    That is, again, without Ohio and Florida.

    [ Parent ]

    But if the Pennsylvania and New Jersey (none / 0) (#32)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:22:01 PM EST
    polls are right, he won't hang onto everything Kerry did.

    [ Parent ]
    See my post above... (none / 0) (#35)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:26:15 PM EST
    ...these head-to-head polls are almost surely skewed by the fact that the Dem race remains a question mark. Expect them to change with the media coverage/party unity displays etc. that come in the wake of a Clinton or Obama clinching of the nomination.


    [ Parent ]
    Obama has enjoyed the most favorable (none / 0) (#41)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:31:58 PM EST
    political coverage I have ever seen. He's almost portrayed as he second coming. I don't think it's going to get much better for him.

    [ Parent ]
    I think that the Democrats not having (none / 0) (#44)
    by hairspray on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:35:57 PM EST
    a defined candidates does make the polling more difficult.  However, the swiftboating hasn't happened yet either.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree, hairspray... (none / 0) (#50)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:41:11 PM EST
    ...both Hillary & Obama will do better once one of them becomes the nominee.

    As for swiftboating, I think Hillary can't be swiftboated anymore.  She has been, for better or worse, defined in Republicans' eyes. That's a selling point for her.

    For Obama that's much more difficult.  On the other hand, he's a tougher target for a number of reasons and I expect his nimble campaign would be able to respond well to such attacks.

    [ Parent ]

    Sar75, anything to point to? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Chisoxy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:55:35 PM EST
    You keep mentioning that their numbers will go up, but is there anything to point to? Polls? I remember McCains numbers being solid back when Romney and Huckabee had a chance, I dont see why things would improve substantially once its Obama or Hillary. Actually, isnt polling saying most people expect Obama to be the nominee, and he still isnt out pointing Hillary by much vs McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    No, no hard evidence... (none / 0) (#109)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:57:57 PM EST
    ...do you need hard evidence to speculate that the current fighting on the Democratic side coupled with the fact that McCain is now the clear nominee and is gathering the party behind him haven't hurt the Dems numbers in the head to head?  Once the Democratic nominee is clear, voters will have a clear choice.  Right now the only clear choice they have is McCain.

    We'll see, but again, I think (just a speculation) that once this thing is clear, the Democratic candidate gets a burst of favorable coverage (which I think will come no matter what for a couple of weeks), their numbers will improve. It will still be close, but I find it hard to believe that after it's clear Obama will be behind in New Jersey or Mass.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't see how (none / 0) (#102)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:16:29 PM EST
    I think you are really seeing how either would do right now assuming they were the nominee. Only difference I see is that Obamas numbers will only go down if he is the nominee and is attacked regularly.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess this means... (none / 0) (#113)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:15:31 PM EST
    ...that Clinton will also go down as well.

    Right now, according to the RCP average, Obama is up 47.5 to 43.6 to McCain. Clinton is down 45.5 to 46.3.  There are still more state polls out there showing Obama up over McCain than Clinton over McCain.

    But while I have used these polls to convince myself that Obama is more electable, until the nomination is clear, I think they're all a bit premature.  I still expect either Democrat's numbers to improve once they are the nominee and begin to train their fire on McCain rather than fighting two-front campaigns.  Finally, as the economy continues to sour the Democratic nominee should do better.

    All of that said, I am (see my other post) enormously frustrated that a year that should be a shoe-in is this close.  Imagine how Al Gore or Mark Warner would be polling right now against McCain?  The fact is we've got two exciting candidates who are also both very risky.

    [ Parent ]

    didn't Obama win Missouri? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:01:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but sooooo barely so (nt) (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:23:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama Won MO By Slightly Less Than 10,000 Votes (none / 0) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:51:35 PM EST
    He won all the Democratic counties and lost every other county to Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    MO Blue, the question then is (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:29:21 PM EST
    would those rural counties be GOP, anyway? But would any Dem win the more populous Dem counties, anyway?

    [ Parent ]
    Under Normal Circumstances, Any Dem Would (none / 0) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:59:25 PM EST
    win the more populous Dem counties and Clinton would pick up more votes in the GOP counties giving her IMO a better chance at winning the state. All bets are off this year, since I do not know how the AA communities which make up a large % of the voters in the Dem counties will react if Obama does not get the nomination. OTOH, Obama will get less votes than Clinton in non Democratic strongholds which will jeopardize his chances of winning the state.

    A mess any way you cut it.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks -- that's my sense in general (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:44:48 PM EST
    and not just in Missouri -- that there are so many unknown unknowns.  And, although not the case in Missouri, I attribute a lot of that to all the caucuses, as we still don't really have a delegate count in those states to even get a sense of which of our Dems would do better.

    There is too much need this time to compare too many apples, oranges, maybe mangoes and pomegranates. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    How he did in the primary (none / 0) (#61)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:27:38 PM EST
    is not an indicator that he will win the state in the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree... (none / 0) (#13)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:55:48 PM EST
    ...this election will be a race to 270, like the last two.  I do think that there is a possibility this time around to reduce some of the red state margins, especially in Virginia (which I don't think Obama wins) and North Carolina, but also in the mountain states and the deep south.   Playing for votes in some of these unwinnable states will make a 270-280 electoral vote victory more compelling though and might lay the groundwork for a 35-40 state strategy in 2012.

    Michigan and Pennsylvania remain "must wins" for the Democratic candidate, and Ohio would be the big prize.  Given the worsening state of the economy, which should play right into Democrats' hands, I think they're likely to be blue in November. I'd forgo Florida altogether though in favor of concentrating on Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Iowa, which together with the states Kerry won in 2004 exceed 270.

    The one state I am, though, strangely worried about is New Hampshire, which seems to have a special place in its heart for John McCain.

    Good & Bad News From Rasmussen for Both (none / 0) (#23)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:05:39 PM EST
    Rasmussen also has Clinton losing against Mccain. However, there's some good news:

    Sunday, March 02, 2008

    A surge in the number of people who consider themselves Democrats has led to five state changes in Electoral College projections for the Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator. Two states, Wisconsin and New Hampshire, move from Leans Democrat to Likely Democrat. Two others, Delaware and Washington, move from Likely Democrat to Safe Democrat. Tennessee moves from Safe Republican to Likely Republican.

    The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator currently projects 168 Electoral Votes as "Safely Democratic," 84 Electoral Votes as "Likely Democratic" and 32 Electoral Votes as "Leans Democratic." (see recent daily results).

    However, when "leaners" are not included, the Democrats lead 252 Electoral Votes to 189. That's a gain of 14 Electoral Votes for the Democrats. A total of 270 Electoral Votes are needed to win the White House.



    Oh no, not good news for Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:33:28 PM EST
    since Rasmussen is usually so wrong. I do think, though, that this closest state in 2004 does a bit more than lean Dem now. Likely, though? Hard to call, since our Dem primary had so much crossover. Our local pollsters always do best at calling Wisconsin, so I wish they had been in place for the primary. Watch for those to start for the GE to get a better handle on how it will go in Wisconsin.

    [ Parent ]
    Btw, if it is to be trusted on trends (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:36:07 PM EST
    there is interesting news at your link -- Obama trending down, Clinton trending up against McCain?

    [ Parent ]
    Texas is a swing state (none / 0) (#54)
    by jfung79 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:07:49 PM EST
    Texas is winnable for Democrats this year, I think more so than Florida, particularly if Obama is nominated.  McCain is popular among older voters, which would help him in Florida, and Obama would also have the delegate albatross around his neck.  Not to mention Cuba.

    Meanwhile, in Texas, a SurveyUSA poll last week had Hillary within 6 points of McCain and Obama within 8 points of McCain  

    In 1992 and 1996, Texas was close even without Democrats focusing on it.  This year, with no Texan on the ballot (probably) for the Republicans, it will be close again.  Texas Democrats are also more motivated and excited than they have been in years, by the campaigns crisscrossing the state.

    Dreamworld ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:15:47 PM EST
    I remember for a week or so in 1992 the Clinton campaign thought they could win Texas.  Then they woke up.

    Dems haven't taken TX since LBJ gave it to us on a silver platter.

    [ Parent ]

    I live in Texas so I'm probably biased :) (none / 0) (#60)
    by jfung79 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:24:28 PM EST
    But just a little correction, 1976 is the last time the Democrats won.  

    [ Parent ]
    Right ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:29:18 PM EST
    but that was the first Southern Presidential Candidate since reconstruction.

    We only get one of those.

    I always forget about the Electoral College map in '76 because it's an aberration, for the reason stated above.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually no (none / 0) (#96)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:54:05 PM EST
    Jimmy Carter won Texas in 1976.

    There are only about 6 states that the Democrats are almost certain not to win.  The Dems are going to win in November by a wide margin.

    [ Parent ]

    I think your