Electability And The 50 State Strategy

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.


    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.)



    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.

    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.  


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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)


    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.

    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."

    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.  


    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.

    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.

    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.  


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

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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)


    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.


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

    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

    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.)

    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.

    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.

    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)

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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


    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.

    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.  


    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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.:-)

    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
    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"

    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.


    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.



    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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 $$$ that he is currently pulling in. He will have more than enough to spare on some futile battles. Even if he can not win some red/purple-states, he can force McCain to play defense (who at the moment, can't raise any $$).

    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.


    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.

    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.

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


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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. "


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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."


    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.    


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    didn't Obama win Missouri? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:01:52 PM EST
    Yes, but sooooo barely so (nt) (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:23:01 PM EST
    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.

    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?

    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.


    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. . . .


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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.


    I think your premise is junk (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:15:48 PM EST
    but did you even read the SUSA poll you reference? It shows that Hillary is marginally stronger against McCain than Obama.

    I agree Hillary is stronger (none / 0) (#57)
    by jfung79 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:19:24 PM EST
    When I said particularly if Obama is the nominee, I meant he would be weaker in Florida.

    Also, the last time Texas went to the Democrats was 1976, not 1964.


    Hope this isn't irrational exuberance (none / 0) (#62)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:27:56 PM EST
    but I'll believe it when I see it.  Austin will go blue and the Valley will go blue, but pay attention to which candidate wins the Valley.  Dallas county will be blue, but all the suburbs around it will go bright red, I imagine.

    One reason Texas may have been closer in '92 and '96, even with a transplanted Texan on the republican side, is Bill Clinton was a very popular governor of a neighboring state.  Clinton also had long standing ties to Texas dating back to the '72 campaign.  Those surrogates helped him out a lot.  If not for the draft dodger business, he might have pulled out a win.

    A democratic win in Texas would make my day!


    I don't think we need worry (none / 0) (#63)
    by WillBFair on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:28:20 PM EST
    about winning this time. People know this war is a huge strategic mistake, and they'll have to vote for the democrat, not matter what they think of us on other issues. I'm more concerned with Obama's inexperience, naivete, and opportunism. I so wish the young generation could know how fantastic it is when the Clintons are in the oval office.

    I think Florida is definitely gone (none / 0) (#67)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:31:42 PM EST
    if McCain picks Charlie Crist as his running mate, which was allegedly part of the deal when Crist endorsed him (a rumor I'm not sure I believe.)

    we can afford to lose Florida (none / 0) (#145)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:39:30 PM EST
    ..if Crist is the VP nominee, because a whole lot of the Christian-right in swing states are gonna be really PO'd if McCain picks someone like Crist.

    I don't see McCain going with Crist...sure he makes Florida a lock, but he creates a lot more vulnerable states -- the Xtian right has adopted Huckabee, and if they don't get him as VP, they are going to get the message that the GOP has not respect for them.

    So either McCain has to pick Huckabee, or he goes with someone like Christy Whitman or Michael Steele, depending upon whom the Dems nominee is... if its Obama, then Whitman is a smart choice, if its Clinton, the Steele makes sense.


    I'll state it more bluntly (none / 0) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:48:37 PM EST
    Crist is a 50 year old bachelor.

    The rumors will swirl.


    That's a sad commentary on the news today. (none / 0) (#172)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:15:52 PM EST
    And I certainly am not gonna vote Republican anyway, but just sad that rumors would fly.

    I also have my doubts (none / 0) (#69)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:37:06 PM EST
    that Obama's opposition to Iraq will carry as much weight in the GE. To many primary voters, it is literally the only thing that matters. But the portion of the electorate that has opposed the war from the start is much higher among Dem primary voters than the electorate at large. I'm not so sure the message that only someone with bad judgment could have supported the war will ring as true in the GE.

    And (some) Obama supporters may get away with calling Hillary a neo-con warmonger with blood on her hands, but that definitely won't play against McCain.

    Obama (none / 0) (#70)
    by sas on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:46:41 PM EST
    will not win Pennsylvania.

    There are too many seniors here.  I have heard a number of them say (men and women)  that if Hillary is not running they will vote for McCain, because of his experience.

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:41:19 PM EST
    ...doesn't he have more experience than Senator Clinton, too?  

    It's not about "more experience", (none / 0) (#98)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:55:11 PM EST
    it's about "enough experience". Obama was a state Senator a few years ago, who admits that he doesn't know enough about many aspects of government, and will need to hire people to care of it for him. Which is one of the reasons that the Hagel and Lugar picks are bad. Clinton doesn't have as much experience as McCain, but she has enough.

    That's (none / 0) (#105)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:32:03 PM EST
    ...just ridiculous.  President Clinton had no experience in a federal office.  He campaigned on change and the voters believed him.  His presidency was a disaster for the party, but he did manage to push through some positive reforms and we had a lot of goodwill abroad that was destroyed by the Iraq war.

     Just like you can't say change and magically bring about a revolution, you can't just say "experience" and magically make it "enough" experience, to say nothing of the "right" experience.  The major domestic legislative accomplishments that stick out in my mind from 1996 are the Telecommunications Act, Communication Decency Act, welfare reform, DOMA, AEDPA, Line Item veto and the minimum wage increase.  So...anti-porn, anti-gay, anti-welfare, pro-death penalty, pro-worker (but not by too much), pro-powerful executive branch, and pro-media consolidation.  Line item veto and communication decency act had the virtue of also being unconstitutional.  Nor has Senator Clinton really distanced herself from this kind of triangulation strategy; she wanted the FCC to investigate Grand Theft Auto for inserting sex scenes, she voted for the Iraq war and praised their absurd and meaningless 2005 elections, has refused to oppose all of DOMA and was not present for the Telecommunications immunity vote but was present for the Iranian national guard vote.  There's a reason progressives and and party activists are running from the DLC: it made our situation today possible.  


    Put it this way then (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:42:46 PM EST
    -- for the seniors I know, quite a few, the term "experience" appears to mean "maturity" to them. Polls may not indicate this, based on how they fram the campaign on "just words." But it becomes more clear as I talk with them to figure out what they mean.

    I'll say it. (none / 0) (#110)
    by cymro on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:01:26 PM EST
    I don't believe Obama is ready to be President yet. Clinton demonstrates far greater maturity and self assurance. We would be much better served if he were the VP for 8 years.

    Unfortunately... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:37:28 PM EST
    ...from the perspective of many people around my age (25) and slightly older, they key to his candidacy is that he hasn't been in Washington for eight years.  There was a surge of young voters in 2004, compared to 2000.  Problem was that there was a surge of conservatives that year, too, and our candidate was not as inspiring as Senator Obama is.  

     Senator Clinton has a real problem with people my age.  I am not as much worried about them voting for Senator McCain as I am about them not showing up.  We're generation 9/11, people.  President Bush is the first president we had a chance to vote for, we were 18 or 19 on September 11th and 19 or 20 in 2002, when the vote for the war was authorized.  In the last eight years we have had a real opportunity to see the disaster of the Bush administration, and we have rejected it.    

     By contrast, the older voters gave us non-stop partisan bickering and divisiveness over the last two decades.  I'll say it now and again: We do not want to relitigate the Vietnam era, and we do not care most about the quantity of your experience, we care most about its quality.  


    you do realize (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:13:34 PM EST
    that Obama is not 25 years old, right?  I mean, he's almost 50.  And he's been in politics for most of his adult life working in the Daley Machine in Chicago, one of the most formidable and onerous political arenas in our nation...right?

    Sometimes it's good to try to write your own history, but to do this at the expense of ignoring the history before your own will only make you repeat that same history you chose to ignore.  Go back and look at the causes of the great wars of the 20th century if you want to see how adept the "new, improved generation" is at making their own mistakes...and how similar their mistakes are to the generation before them.

    A baby boomer who dodged Vietnam got us into Iraq.


    The problem... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:36:49 PM EST
    ...is that there is a generational difference in attitudes towards the world, towards cultural issues and towards economic policy.  If Senator Feingold had been running, make no mistake, he would have received my vote.  I think he gets it.  Senator Obama's political perspective is very different from Senator Clinton's.  I'm sorry, but it just is, and it really shows in foreign policy.  And yes, I know he's not 25, in fact:

     I know that he was born in 1961 and his mother was very young when junior was born.  I know that she was studying anthropology, socially liberal and that her parents opposed the marriage. I also know that there were states that had criminalized such unions and those bans would be declared unconstitutional just eight years later. I know that by the time he finished law school he had lived in Hawaii, Indonesia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, California and that he had family in Kansas and Kenya.  That by 2004 he had been a state legislator for eight years and had managed to get the Illinois senate to vote 58-0 to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations which, if you work in criminal law, you would appreciate as pretty close to a political miracle.

     I also appreciate that Illinois is not just Chicago and that Republicans controlled the legislature for a decade, so speak of the Daley machine all you want.  He had to work with Republicans in Illinois, and he did.  He has always worked carefully, methodically and effectively.  He has not stepped away from taking strong stands.  Even his much-criticized "present" votes were part of a strategy designed to deny the legitimacy of the legislation.  

     I suspect that Senator Clinton authorized the Iraq war because she was privy to intelligence collected under President Clinton, not the current intelligence presented to the senate, which was extraordinarily weak.  Even if Hussein had WMDS, though, there was no justification for going to war.  I knew it then, everyone knows it now.  People my age look right at that vote, her hawkishness, the absence from the FISA vote and they shake their heads and say, "not again."



    In all sincerity... (none / 0) (#173)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:26:37 PM EST
    ...how do "people your age" (and I say that as an under-40 HRC supporter) feel about the fact that Obama's Illinois record was pumped up in one year by a Majority Leader who was "going to make a Senator" by putting his name on legislation that others had worked for for years?  

    How they feel about the fact that one speech at an anti-war rally, in an anti-war constituency does not translate to "good judgment" on the war, especially since he defended Sen. Clinton's position when it was Sen. Kerry's in 2004, or the fact that he has done nothing since coming to office to try and stop the war?

    How do they feel about a candidate who wants to talk tough on our relations with Europe, Afghanistan, and NATO, but when he had the opportunity to delve into these questions, he was too busy working on his next job?

    And, I guess I understand why "people of your age" don't think experience matters.  But please think about this:

    1. Many of you will be looking or are currently looking for a job.  You've done internships, participated in extracurricular activities, and volunteered.  Why?  To get EXPERIENCE to get your first real job.  Why are some of you not getting the job of your dreams - you don't have experience.

    2. We are concluding 8 years of an administration with a president who really had little experience (the Lt. Gov is actually more powerful in Texas than the governor, and the legislature is only part-time every other year).  Why do you think this country needs another president who needs on the job training?

    I'm not trying to be snarky, but I really am curious.  Especially as I should fit perfectly in an Obama demographic (under 40, highly educated). Please explain it to me.

    By your estimation... (none / 0) (#174)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:50:45 PM EST
    ...people our age are unfit for political office, but all we see from our votes to the boomers is hesitation.  They talked a good game about equal rights under the law, but they vote overwhelmingly (both Republicans and so-called progressive Democrats) for anti-gay amendments.  They talk a good game about judgment in foreign policy, but they are hawks who appear to be out of touch with the rest of the world (not all Dems, but enough to make a difference).  Time and time again, from FISA to modern corporatism to criminal law.  Where are sober advocates of decriminalization?  Where was Senator Clinton on the FISA vote, perhaps the most definitive example of the extremity of this U.S. president?  It sours me enough to want to campaign against Pelosi and Reid in their primaries.

     America is purple and that is especially true of younger voters.  President Clinton is responsible for much of that shift.  

     I find it amusing that people accuse Senator Obama of empty rhetoric when it is the Democratic Party itself that is empty.  It is just an apparatus for putting people into office, fueled as much by lobbyist money as the GOP. What does being a Democrat mean if you make one of the biggest blunders in modern history, authorizing a war that is destroying our future and alienating us from the rest of the world?  Pursuing policies that will get Americans killed and tortured abroad?  Refusing to say torture is wrong, wrong, wrong.  Do I live in America?  

     And I am especially infuriated by how Senator Clinton's campaign managers have personally maligned Senator Obama's supporters in the wake of her massive losses, and how people on this board treat us.  We're not instrumental in 2008?  We just sip latte and talk about change? Like the two Clinton supporters, sixty-year old women, sipping latte and talking about how empty Senator Obama's campaign is right in front of me? I'm not putting in 20 hours per week at a public defender office while studying full time?  I'm not worried about the economy, even though, at the top of my law school class, I don't have a nice big firm job lined up, am in extreme debt and getting ready to get into more for the bar? I'm not a loyal progressive, even though I have campaigned in three out of the last four elections?  Really?  Was I a loyal progressive when I was a supporter of Senator Clinton's campaign, before I jumped ship?  Oh wait, I forgot...I am drinking Jim Jones Kool Aid and caught up in a cult of personality.  The insults just pour in.

     Yeah, experience matters and he has all the experience he needs.  He doesn't need another year in the toxic, do-nothing senate.   The capitulation of the Democrats in the face of the most extreme presidency in U.S. history also guarantees he'll have virtually unchecked executive power.  And no, I do not believe that Senator Obama is a manchurian candidate, do not believe that Americans will fall for that, and I do not believe that is the quantity of your experience, it is the quality.  Senator Clinton's experience is not something I want to repeat.  



    Nice of you to put us aside so condescendingly (none / 0) (#132)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:54:00 PM EST
    It must always feel good when you don't know how much you don't know.  

    Funny... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:57:45 PM EST
    ...when I was busy campaigning for Al Gore, I had to explain how he was very, very different from George Bush, to young voters who didn't see it and were flocking to Ralph Nader.  In 2004, I had to argue for Senator Kerry, despite his vote for the authorization of the Iraq war, a position that was extremely unpopular among younger voters.  The coordinated campaigns in MI were pretty successful; despite battleground status we won in both.  

     People my age must just be idiots.  Ugh.  


    Age is not the requirement :-) (none / 0) (#135)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:01:06 PM EST
    A flocking to Ralph Nader, not that's something else.

    Coffee cup or whatever it was called (none / 0) (#139)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:35:00 PM EST
    she wanted the FCC to investigate Grand Theft Auto for inserting sex scenes

    And it's a bad thing to hold the gaming industry accountable for the cr@p they sneak into games that are sold to kids?  Cry all you want about First Amendment Rights and how it's the parent's responsibility to watch what their kids are doing/playing with, but that hidden cr@p in GTA was just tremendously inappropriate.


    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:45:30 PM EST
    ...by criminalizing the sale of the game (admittedly, this is a popular video GAME enjoyed by youngsters), based on content? Supporting legislation that is unconstitutional ON ITS FACE is the way to do that? To go through all the time, energy and money required to get the bill pushed through the federal legislature, have it be challenged immediately (and successfully) with a TRO only to go all the way to the Supreme Court, where it will inevitably be declared unconstitutional?

     Yeah, it is a bad thing.  Sorry.


    Clinton doesn't want to criminalize (none / 0) (#152)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:12:47 PM EST
    the sale of a video game. I don't know where you got that idea.

    Because she introduced legislation... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:10:44 PM EST
    ...that did just that:


      She called the penalty a "civil penalty" in her legislation, but given that the penalty was a very high fine (1K for first violation, 5K for any subsequent violation) and that the alternative punishment was 100 hours of community service or 500 hours for subsequent violations, and that such penalties attached to the manager or managerial agent, well...smells criminal to me.

     Moreover, it is flatly unconstitutional and similar legislation was rejected in two separate federal districts. Which is probably why it went nowhere.


    omg, Ben Masel is right (none / 0) (#157)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:42:53 PM EST
    and this Obama bloc is about a videogame?!

    haha... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:04:07 AM EST
    ...I had to do a search to even know what you were getting at (I am a latecomer to political blogs, as opposed to legal ones).  Nah, I don't think it is actually costing her "cool" votes. But ACLU and like-minded supporters? Yeah, probably, especially when combined with FISA, the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq vote, etc.  It is a bit unfair, because Senator Obama was not in the senate when the initial votes were cast, but it is what it is.  It annoyed me with Gore, to be honest, even when I campaigned for him.  A friend of the family had that awful book his wife wrote when I was like, 12 or 13, and I read portions of it and it made me want to gag.  In the full interest of self-disclosure, my dad does a lot of work for the ACLU and I won their youth activist award in 2000, so I am more than a little biased.  Also for the record, I think my dad wants Senator Clinton to win, so she hasn't lost them all. ;-)

    Great answer, and (none / 0) (#165)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:35:02 AM EST
    I think your dad is cool. :-)

    Hillary is the obvious and best choice- (none / 0) (#71)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:46:45 PM EST
    she holds Penn, NJ, Mich. and brings Iowa, Mo.,Ohio, Fla.,NM, and Co. into play. She could also make Tx. a fight. He brings  Co.,NM, Iowa into play, but might lose MUST-WIN Penn. and Mich. He looks poor in Ohio and Fla. which could seal a Dem. win for Hillary.

    Don't forget Arkansas (none / 0) (#73)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:54:13 PM EST
    she can/will get that too.

    Are you sure... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:43:38 PM EST
    ...about that? This is the same Arkansas that sent Mike Huckabee to Clinton's old post. She did well in the primary, but I don't know that that translates to a general election win.

    AR in the GE (none / 0) (#164)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:16:00 AM EST

    1) McCain chooses Huckabee for VP
    ....A) Hillary gets nomination -- AR is a "battlegound" that will go to McCain
    ....B) Obama gets nomination -- AR is off the Dem map entirely

    2) McCain doesn't choose Huckabee
    ....A) Hillary gets nomination AR becomes a swing state that will probably go Dem
    ....B) Obama gets nomination -- AR is a "battlegound" that will probably go to McCain


    AR (none / 0) (#104)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:27:16 PM EST
    I'm unsure about this, it would obviously be closer than Obama/Mccain but I think people who are touting it (and TN) for her are falling into the same trap as people touting ID for Obama. 2 points about AR:

    1. While the state dem's love the Clinton's the state GOP loathes them with equal fervor.
    2. The perception of corruption is especially strong in AR-- Clinton's successor for GOV went to prison, Bill was stripped of his law license, etc. I think its more of a factor among indies here than it is in other states.

    "AR"? (none / 0) (#140)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:37:23 PM EST

    AR= Arkansas (none / 0) (#149)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:49:58 PM EST
    AR is Arkansas, AK is Alaska, AZ is Arizona, AL is Alabama.

    I deleted a ton of off topic comments (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:54:33 PM EST
    Please have off topic discussions in the Open Thread.

    Super Tuesday and November (none / 0) (#115)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:24:10 PM EST
    While the clinton camp totally screwed up its post-Super Tuesday strategy, on Super Tuesday it demonstrated that it new how to win a big, multi-state contest like a general election -- and her election strategy looked forward to November, not the convention.

    I think her most impressive win was in Massachusetts -- not becuase she beat the Patrick/Kennedy/Kerry machines, but because it shows that she knew that if Romney got the nomination, Massachusetts would be in play (it would still go dem, but the Democratic candidate would have to put resources into the state.)  

    And she's been running as a "left of center moderate", firmly establishing her identity as such in all the key states.  She has a head start in all the states that she competed in on ST -- Obama doesn't; and remains pretty much "undefined" other than being inspirational and "not Hillary."

    that is key to Obama's electability problem (none / 0) (#117)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:31:40 PM EST
    he has not defined himself.  We are starting to see the media look beyond the "change" mantle to try to find out what is underneath.  They are finding...not much.  As Obama has run his entire campaign on NOT being a politician, once folks find out that he actually is, what are they going to believe in?  And I mean real people, not bloggers who are rabidly Obama and would find a way to justify just about anything their candidate does.

    The republicans, on the other hand, are very good at defining their opponents.  It'll take about two seconds for them to have the world believing whatever history they write on Obama.


    And the key to Clinton's electability problem... (none / 0) (#123)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:38:30 PM EST
    ...is that 45-50% of the country, depending on the poll, has a negative opinion of her, and she's the one thing that can bring out demoralized and divided Republicans who might stay home rather than vote for McCain.

    I support Obama, but concede he's risky. Overall, polls suggest he might be a little less risky than Clinton, but maybe not.  It's really a wash.  Both are risky candidates - can we agree on that?

    Oh, if we just had Al Gore or Mark Warner running!


    high risk vs low risk (none / 0) (#129)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:48:52 PM EST
    yes, both candidates represent a risk.  All candidates do.

    To me, the electability issue is about possibilities.  For instance, I think that win or lose, a Clinton v McCain is most likely to be reasonably close.  Obama v McCain is likely to be more lopsided, one way or the other.

    That is one of the reasons I prefer Clinton -- if thinks go bad for Obama by September/October, it will be in a big way.  If things go bad for Clinton by that point, it will be a much smaller deficit to make up.

    Conversly, of course, if thinks are looking good for Obama by September/October, it will be in a big way, and he can probably skate to November (because it means that he hasn't been defined by six months of GOP attacks).  If things are looking good for Clinton then, it won't be a "dominating" lead, and she could still lose.


    Obama's negatives (none / 0) (#171)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:13:43 PM EST
    Obama has about the same negatives as Hillary nationwide.

    I guess the 11 million people... (none / 0) (#124)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:39:29 PM EST
    ...who've voted for Obama aren't "real people".

    That's rich


    We've already seen it... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:48:38 PM EST
    ...and most people rejected it.  The ones who haven't never would have.  They're painting him as a manchurian candidate.  It isn't working.  Even Tim Russert tried it, albeit with a new angle.  I suspect they'll keep trying it.  It won't work.

     The real value of Senator Obama?  What he brings to the table?  The most globalized perspective of any presidential candidate ever.  They're trying to use it as a negative, but even recent convert and conservative hack Andrew Sullivan sees right through it to the truth:  the election of Senator Barack Hussein Obama alone brings us a seismic shift in the perspective of foreigners.  The idea that this campaign trick will work is insulting to the intelligence of the American people.

     Fear. Divide. Conquer.  That has been the strategy employed in every campaign waged by the establishment choices.  We're just saying enough is enough.  


    correction (none / 0) (#131)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:52:40 PM EST
    ...and most <strike>people</strike> Democrats rejected it.

    Andrew Sullivan voted for Ron Paul (none / 0) (#134)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:59:08 PM EST
    So he obviously "sees right through to the truth".

    Enough is enough of amorphous platitudes being used as a platform to bring the sheeple home.


    There's a big difference... (none / 0) (#142)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:23:53 PM EST
    ... between winning New Jersey in a poll, and winning it in an actual election. That's the reason it's a perpetual black hole of Republican hopes and dreams, not to mention campaign dollars. I do think Hillary runs better there than Obama, and I think Obama would have to work to carry the state against McCain. But if Obama is the nominee, and the state party establisment that backs Hillary now gets behind him, the state's traditional machine politics will carry him to victory.

    Agreed... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:58:43 PM EST
    ...but I fear NH, ME and CT, regardless of who we nominate.  Ditto IA, WI, MI, OH, FL, NM, NV and the entire South.  Senator McCain is a big question mark. I was impressed by her performance in AS, though.  The victory was pretty lopsided, which I didn't expect, mostly because this is a post-Bill Clinton primary and the state is deeply conservative.  Plus, I read that she had considered running in the state for governor back in the 80s but decided against it when she realized she didn't have much of a shot.

    I mostly worry about Pennsylvania... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:08:41 PM EST
    ... and Ohio, as well as Florida, where Hillary would probably be a longshot, but Obama seems to have no chance. The Democrats there are older, and likely more resistant to Obama's appeal, even without the wrangling over the Florida delegates, which doesn't help.

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:42:37 PM EST
    ...well I agree with your analysis of FL and OH, at least that she would have a shot at carrying them.  I think that she would almost certainly carry OH, but Florida is a longshot and Pennsylvania is problematic.  They rejected Senator "man on dog" Santorum but they replaced him with Senator Casey, a pro-life Democrat.  Additionally, Senator Specter is fairly moderate, and he even managed to survive a primary challenge (although narrowly and only with endorsements by Senator Santorum and President Bush).  

     Unfortunately, I also worry that Senator McCain's appeal to Hispanics and independent voters could be disastrous for either candidate.  If he opens the door to California, we're perhaps doomed.  I can also tell you that among gay men who identify as Republicans (a laugh) he is pretty well-liked.  In California that could kill the Democrats in a tight race. They vote disproportionately but are less reliable than Jews in supporting Democrats.  Given the tight race that we will face, I cannot emphasize enough the important of their votes; they made up 4% of the vote in 2004 and 5% in 1996 (and more of them abandoned President Clinton that year).  Their support appears to have been strongest in 2004, but it should have been close to 100%; instead it was 77%.  

     They have been waiting for someone like Senator McCain to change the political discourse.  If Guiliani had won in the primary, they would have flocked to the GOP in record numbers, unfortunately.  I assume this is in line with their economic interests.  Senator Clinton has done a good job with them so far, but I noticed that she lost San Francisco County.  That is very, very troubling, particularly if Nader runs and in light of the fact that much of the vote was write-in and Senator McCain won the Republican primary there.  And that is the reason that Senator McCain scares the hell out of me.  I had hoped the right would rally behind a political dinosaur, but instead they splintered and gave us a Republican with a positive image.  


    Link re gay vote? Since . . . (none / 0) (#158)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:52:35 PM EST
    the Dallas Voice reports that "according to MSNBC, exit polls of voters in California and New York suggest 'gay, lesbian, and bisexual' voters favored Clinton by 63 percent to Obama's 29 percent in California. That differed significantly from voters who did not identify as gay; those voters supported Clinton 52 percent to Obama's 42 percent in California.

    "In New York, 59 percent of 'gay, lesbian and bisexual' voters backed Clinton, compared to 36 percent for Obama. In New York, unlike in California, the difference between gay and non-gay voters was minimal: 58 percent of non-gay voters backed Clinton and 40 percent supported Obama."


    Um... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:39:23 AM EST
    ...I wasn't talking about the primary, I was talking about the general election.  Much to my dismay, I know that gay voters are lining up behind Senator Clinton primarily for two reasons: President Clinton's history of reaching out to gay people and the fact that female politicians traditionally do more for gays and lesbians than male politicians, even Republican females.  That being said, and as I have said before, I am not in favor of identity politics for the sake of identity politics.  The fact that Senator Obama accepts the support of people who oppose the idea of granting me equal rights does not really bother me.  I'm more interested in the fact that he wants to engage these people in a substantive debate as opposed to attempting to force the issue onto an unwilling electorate.  

     And that is the problem in a tight race with Republicans with Senator McCain as the candidate.  There are a lot of gay voters, primarily men, that like him and believe that he can shift the debate because he is not personally anti-gay.  Unlike many voters, gay voters experience political decisions on a deeply personal level. For that reason, they follow politics closely.  They believe, correctly, that Senator McCain is really just pandering to the right on gay issues.  The know he supported Representative Kolbe when he came out in the 90s.  They know he opposed the FMA.  They know that he has hired openly gay staffers.  

     I detect only a few problems for Senator Clinton in November among these voters, if the election is close, and they can all be corrected.  First, she needs to just support a total repeal of DOMA.  Second, she needs to vehemently oppose every state constitutional amendment to ban not only marriage for same-sex couples, but also the alternatives.  Gay voters do NOT care that much about the difference between civil unions and marriage, as long as the federal government treats them the same.  Being strong on ENDA is not enough, because a lot of states have passed anti-discrimination laws (including, ironically, Nevada, where one would expect such a law to have little support). Additionally, the cities that gay people flock to have also passed anti-discrimination ordinances.  

     I am very much in the minority of gay voters, I grant you that.  I was raised by two liberal midwesterers who were the first to finish college and, additionally, the first to finish grad school.  I voted for Senator Obama for reasons totally unrelated to my sexuality.  But I also know a lot of gay white Republican guys.  They vote in larger numbers than their Hispanic, Black, Asian or Native American peers.  Their demographic backgrounds are not usually like my own, and many of them are not out to their own families.  In fact, their backgrounds present an unusual problem: a large number of them were raised by conservative Republicans.  That is not usually the case with African American, Hispanic, Jewish or Asian voters, although the others may have been raised by Democratic conservatives.  

     Bottom line: in a close race she needs to do more besides being a liberal Dem.  Against Governor Romney, that would work.  Against Senator McCain, not really.  


    Huh, you raised California (none / 0) (#160)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:43:01 AM EST
    and the primary, so I looked into it more.