The Electoral Map

The new World's Greatest Pollster, SUSA, released its 50 state electoral maps today. Kos has a good discussion of the results, which show both Clinton and Obama garnering narrow victories over McCain.

My own thoughts are that while there are some incredible results, no way McCain wins New Jersey against either Clinton or Obama for example, it does demonstrate some basic points. First, while Obama clearly expands the electoral playing field, he also is the bigger risk in key battleground states. There is more risk and more potential reward with Obama as the nominee.

Clinton is clearly stronger, imo, in the big battleground states and she clearly flips Arkansas. Obama in most Western states. This is tied in part to the demographic makeup of their support and Hillary longstanding baggage. Because Obama will be better treated by the Media, he could expand the map. He could also get wiped out.

If Obama can prove some big state strength in PA or in a revoted FL or MI, then his superiority is proven and he will have earned the nomination. If he does not, then Clinton will have a chance to make her case.

(By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.)

< Hillary Releases Plan for Afghanistan | Rezko Trial: Recap Day One >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:23:14 PM EST
    I agree with BTD's comments, but would add one other detail: How well will Obama stand up to swiftboating?

    I know I keep harping on this one point, but I think it's critical: Obama has never faced anything like the attack he would have to weather in the GE against McCain, the 527's, and the 501(c)4's.  It will be beyond ugly, and he will have to fight back much more aggressively than he has at any prior time in his political life.

    I'm confident that if Obama is the nominee he will win--heck, just one of those cutesy candidate-and-family ads we've all seen for decades should be worth 5 percentage points alone, given how old it will make McCain seem, without even mentioning him.  But I have no delusion that it will be easy, nor that the path from nomination to victory in November would take a path any of us could predict.

    As I like to say over on my own site, the future will be a lot of things, but "dull" isn't on the list.

    Swiftboating (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by 0 politico on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:32:44 PM EST
    would be launched against either BO or HC.  But, I agree that this will be a big issue for BO.  Why?  Because past history indicates that he has never really been challenged or slimed in an election.  Those that think (and complain) that the HC campaign has been really negative as of late are kidding themselves.  This has still been relatively civil from them.  Remember, they don't want to get too negative because they do not want the "racist" claims to be thrown at them - the firestorm that the BO campaign was able to ignite over statements that were not expressly or overtly racial were distorted and fanned by the media and blogs has kept the HC folks careful about how they pin BO.

    He and his campaign gave them an opening with the NAFTA stuff and the debate admission that he was too busy to actually call a meeting of his sub committee.  That is a crack in his record, recorded and played out in high-definition that undermines his "ready to lead" credibility, foreign policy and national/defense security arguments.  This is self-inflected.  It will be played by the Republicans as a failure of leadership.  A failure in foreign policy.  And, disinterest by a politician who was too busy, while service members were fighting and dying, because he was busy plotting his next career step.

      His famous 2002 speech will be characterized as opportunistic pandering to a liberal constituency that for the most part was not directly affected by 9-11.  The argument that he had no accountability (he was a local politician at the time), did not have impacted constituents to answer to, no responsibility as a sitting US senator or congress person will reduce the use of that speech as a platform as a moral platitude. It is and I would hope that his campaign will stop using this when they reference the "Invasion of Iraq" as one of the major foreign policy issues of today.  It not the issue of today, it is the issue of a past that we must find a way to move from.  Where we go from here is the issue.  How can this be responsibly resolved so a gaping vacuum is not left.  Blaming a fellow democrat for a vote that was perceived by the Administration as a license to go to preemptive war is not constructive to party solution finding or unity.   Besides, his voting record on funding, then his claiming that he was always against the war, will be played as classic "flip-flopping".

    Rezko will be played out, and replayed, regardless of whether or not there is any wrong doing on BO's part.  The guilt by association will be thrown around, and the real estate deal (which does smell)  will be front and center.  Not to mention the whole question of potential corruption in Chicago politcis and politicians.  Is that enough to make heads hurt?

    Then you have friends like NYTimes columnist Roger Cohen.  He gave a nice little background piece on BO's Kenyan relatives and his search for self history.  It seemed like a pleasant piece, but again, leaves ammo for exploit.  Forget the Cohen excuses BO's lapse in recall over whether he met up with his half-sister at the bus terminal (which she said), or at the airport terminal (what he wrote in his book).  Hey, creative (?) license.  Besides, it has more impact when you say airport terminal (epic journey from Africa vice low rent image of meeting at the bus terminal).  Trivial?  To us, yes.  But to others, he creates his own realities?  Isn't that what we have with the current prez?  Then, for all those good conservative Christian voters, there's the actual parental history.  Dad was a foreign student with a wife back home.  Meets nice atheist woman.  Has an extra marital affair.  BO is born out of wedlock from a frowned upon relationship.  Dad, who comes off as a womanizer, returns home to wife and has more kids, etc..  People who don't care too much about personal lives won't think much, but others will go bizzerk over that.  Think Bill Clinton and all the uproar over real or imagined affairs and harassment.  With nice press like that, who needs bad press?

    HC will not have a free ride.  The other side will try to rehash all the ancient trash as if it was really new news.  Who knows what else they may have dredged up to throw at her.

    The attacks in the primaries have been relatively civil, so far.  Wait until the other side goes full bore, all out.  They don't have to be civil.  They can be self righteous.  Meaning, in their minds, they will always be right.  No kidding.  I've seen it much too often.


    My quibble would be (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by dk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:23:21 PM EST
    that I think Hillary must have decent odds in Oregon, Washington state, and Michigan.  I would think that if she's doing well in the general election, she would probably win them, or at least be very very competitive.

    I Agree (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by BDB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:35:36 PM EST
    Just as I don't think Obama would lose New Jersey, I don't see Clinton losing those three states if she otherwise is winning the general.  

    And I'll say it right now, no way Obama carries North Dakota.  


    List of sttaes by margins (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:55:59 PM EST
    If anyone cares, over at Corrente I broke down the states by candidates and margins, into categories:
    "too close to call" states (margin 3% or less), "swing" state (margin 4-6%), "battleground" states (margins 7-12%), and fairly "safe" states (margins 13% or more), and included EC totals for each group.

    I think ihis makes it much easier to discuss where and how the campaigns will have to differ to win.


    I wished you'd get diary privileges from (none / 0) (#80)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:01:17 PM EST
    Jeralyn so we could discuss some of your posts. I enjoy them.

    thanks... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:11:52 PM EST
    Jeralyn has been very generous with linking to stuff when I guest blog elsewhere, but I don't think that this post provides any new information, it just organizes the recently released data that is the subject of BTDs post.  Doing a separate diary would be redundant! :-)

    Ask Jeralyn for that (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:25:16 PM EST
    Oregon (none / 0) (#39)
    by zyx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:05:43 PM EST
    has all Democratic officials in statewide elected offices.  The GOP has trouble recruiting candidates to run for office (it's an off-year for Gov, and they just aren't getting anyone for some of the other offices open).  The state GOP party is in debt.  They lost control of the state lower house two years ago.  The Democratic governor wasn't so popular when I moved here five years ago--his first term--but he's done a pretty good job and I think people like him now.

    The economy isn't bad here but it isn't great, and the war isn't popular.  People are squeezed by the things that are hurting everyone--college costs, gasoline, taxes, inflation...I don't see any good news here for the GOP.  And no real affection for McCain.  If it were Romney--there are quite a few Mormons, including Senator Smith.  But McCain?  I don't think he has a base here.


    The margins for both look even better (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:24:43 PM EST
    when you consider that Obama is tied in New Jersey and they have it going to McCain, and Clinton is tied in Michigan but they have it going to him. I think both can win either state, which makes for even bigger percentages.

    North Dakota isn't going Democratic though.

    to mix metaphors- (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:25:07 PM EST
    slow and steady wins the race or put all your chips on red and spin the wheel. (sorry, oculus, couldn't go for the obvious)

    It is amazing how these maps reflect the demographics of Clinton's and Obama's supporters so well.  The cautious adult or the brash youth.  Nothing has changed from the first day this race started.  Win with Clinton or roll the dice in the hopes of winning bigger with Obama.

    I suppose it just boils down to what your personality type is and whether or not you can afford to lose.

    Forgive my silly question. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Arbitrarity on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:33:00 PM EST
    But how Clinton a guaranteed win?  While strengthening core states and hoping to ride them to victory is not a bad idea, it's also what lost Kerry and Gore the last 2 elections.

    The loss of a single state becomes backbreaking and puts the outcome into doubt.

    And as much as we can say "Oh, Democrats will win this time, or Hillary will pull it out," given the results of the last 2 elections, I don't think it's as much as a given as so many people are making it out to be.

    (This is not an Obama is a better candidate post, it's about my agreement with the 50-state strategy.)


    First (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:39:32 PM EST
    you are assuming that the map is completely accurate.  You need only read downthread for arguments against certain key states.

    Second, the core dem base is strongly on Clinton's side.  Neither Kerry nor Gore had that.

    Third, she's a fighter.  I know this sounds like a Clinton talking point (and it is) but it's also true.  Clinton knows how to take the republicans head-on.  Obama has been loudly complaining about his one week of bad press and Clinton's "attacks" on him.  He has had it so easy to this point that he practically has a cloud of love around him.


    Not so sure about Clinton (none / 0) (#27)
    by Maggie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:45:03 PM EST
    Over on Kos they make the point that if you look at the actual margins in the polls, there are a lot more 'toss-ups' for Clinton.  So from that angle, Clinton is MORE at risk to lose than is Obama.  

    Meanwhile, Obama's path to the win has the added bonus of expanding the map in useful ways.

    BTW, I'm from the Northwest, and the sort of hardball politics Clinton is playing really doesn't play well there.  We like the maverick types.  


    That is a deceptive post from Kos and Bowers (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:18:42 PM EST
    I could have made different criteria, set tossup at 4. solid at 10, and the number would be the same. Really ridiculous stuff from Kos and Bowers.

    What do "margins in the polls" (none / 0) (#45)
    by plf1953 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:13:41 PM EST
    in the primaries (if that's what you're talking about) have to do with the GE?

    The margins of Dems against Dems in a Dem primary are irrelevant in the GE.

    What matters most in the GE is/are the demograhic makeup of the states and the strength of each candidate among those demos.  True whether the candidate is a Repub or a Dem.



    voters are just "getting to know" Obama (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:25:59 PM EST
    thanks to the media's lack of scrutiny for a year.
    So voters perceptions could change.
    But for all I know his media pass may continue.

    Umm, about NJ... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by goldberry on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:27:44 PM EST
    It wouldn't surprise me at all if we lost NJ with Obama.  I live here and I've lived through two moderate Republican governors.  Our congressional delegation is almost evenly split.  This state could very easily go for McCain with Obama as the nominee.  

    But what I think people are forgetting when they look at this map is that Obama hasn't been subjected to the Clinton Rules yet.  He hasn't faced the massive $250M GOP 527 behemoth that they have cooked up for him.  The map for Clinton probably isn't going to change.  I'd predict that it will get better for her.  People know her what she stands for.  They've heard the crappy media coverage.  It can't go anywhere but up.  

    Yep, don't get too cozy with this map for Obama.    He's a darling now but he won't be in 6 months.    

    And this won't happen to Clinton because... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CST on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:33:03 PM EST
    To be fair, Obama's campaign against her has also been much cleaner than a GOP campaign.  And while we may think we know everything about her already, Obama has not been throwing it in our faces the way the GOP will.  People keep saying Hillary is "vetted" against republicans.  Why, because she ran in NY for senate?????  Or because of what happened to her husband?  Because last time I checked the dems lost an important election after that.

    *dope slap* Pay Attention! (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by goldberry on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:47:01 PM EST
    Where were you during the 90's?!  Her life has been examined in almost pornographic detail.  There's nothing there.  She's the cleanest candidate we've ever had.  
    As for NJ, she can win it because of the geographical thing, being that it's next to NY and we just consider ourselves either suburbs of NYC or Philly at the Trenton dividing line.  She would also appeal to a lot of moderate suburban women.  
    With Obama, McCain would be a much easier choice for the Republicans I work with.  

    Really? (none / 0) (#42)
    by CST on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:09:44 PM EST
    Nothing there?  So that's why it was so easy to elect Gore....  And how exactly is she cleaner than Obama?

    Gore Won (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by BDB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:22:07 PM EST
    And second, if the argument for Obama is now going to be that the VRWC was right about Hillary Clinton, despite being unable to prove anything after $100 million investigation other than her husband got a bj, then I am going to lose it and I suspect I'm not alone.

    Obama and his supporters go down this road at their own peril.   Most of the country hated the investigations of the Clintons in the 1990s which is why, despite all the VRWC crap, Bill was re-elected in 1996 and Dems gained in Congress in the middle of the Lewinsky scandal in 1998.  Now if Obama and his supporters want to emulate the Republican party in the 1990s, I guess that's their right, but that's a weird way to try to win a democratic nomination.

    And I'm absolutely sick of how so many Obama supporters reflexively repeat rightwing slurs against the Clintons and happily agree that Gore lost the 2000 election all to build up their new, shiny, unity party.  My how quick they forget.


    This is not why I support Obama (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:27:58 PM EST
    And has nothing to do with why I support Obama.  I could care less about the Clinton scandals, and I will vote for her in a heartbeat if that is the only choice.  My point is Obama has not gone down this route, but the republicans will.  I am referring to the argument that Obama hasn't been vetted.  My point is, you can't reallly make that argument about JUST Obama.

    Plus, whatever you want to say about Gore winning, last I checked, Bush is our president.  And the way Gore won apparently wasn't good enough.


    But Will Voters Listen (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by BDB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:35:25 PM EST
    I get what your saying, but I honestly don't think voters will listen to talking points on Whitewater or the Travel office faux scandal.  They've already been investigated and the public, including I suspect all but the most rabid Clinton haters, are sick of it all.  That's the good part about not being new or fresh.

    If there's something new with Clinton, then that could be an issue.  But the Republicans will have the same trouble bringing up the old stuff as Obama - people have already heard it and made up their mind about it.

    The thing with Obama is that anything about him will be new to most voters.  Not necessarily terrible, but new and new stuff always has more impact.    He gets quite the benefit from being new and fresh, but the downside is voters don't know him as well and that makes it easier for the GOP to project things onto him or get the news interested in potential "scandals" because it's new and so it's news.  


    Obama has not gone down this route (none / 0) (#62)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:37:16 PM EST
    Sounds like they're thinking about it, referencing land deals and law firms and so forth.  Also letting the racism charges stand was in my view really low.

    Either candidate will win though.  McCain's too old, the economy will be too recessed, Bush will be at 19%...


    Actually (none / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:43:00 PM EST
    He said he would "take Clinton at her word" that she didn't mean it.  Kinda like when Clinton said "As far as I know, he is not a muslim."

    Way late (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:50:15 PM EST
    wasn't it?  Any evidence of him reining in his surrogates?

    And iirc Clinton had said, "No, he's not a Muslim" full stop three times before that last response.  Is Obama on record being that straight-forward re the charges of racism?


    Obama has gone (none / 0) (#87)
    by tree on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:14:16 PM EST
    down that route. He's picked up the Republican meme that the Clinton's will do anything to win, and they can't be trusted, ya-da, ya-da, ya-da, and has run with it.  

    And as for Gore, one of the reasons he lost(but won) was because he didn't run on the Clinton-Gore record. Don't ask me why, but he didn't. And Clinton advised Gore in the last few weeks that he(Gore should campaign in Tennesee and offered to campaign in Arkansas but Gore turned him down.  Don't get me wrong, Gore would have made a hell of a president, but he never was a really good campaigner.


    You are right (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:35:14 PM EST
    As his q-rating goes up, his polling will go down.  The Rezko trial won't help.  Please note that I am not saying he did anything untoward, but his name being attached to a person who is being indicted for fraud, and the fact that Rezko was his friend for 20 years, does not help matters.  Also, it has to be said: there have been some really huge missteps lately.  The "they're both not qualified enough" slip and the "ambush" on the media call by Bauer were amateur mistakes.

    And this is before the republicans get hold of him.


    Add the earlier misstep re Rezko (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:11:26 PM EST
    in the national debate of Obama saying he hardly knew Rezko, only remotely involved in only five billable hours, blah blah blah. That tape is golden for a Republican ad, split-screen, with Obama saying that on one side, the Rezko headlines and Obamas house on the other side. It's probably already in the can and ready to roll.

    I agree about NJ ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:59:56 PM EST
    BTD is too quick to put it in the Obama win column.  Democratic machine politics and all, I still think McCain has a real chance here.

    And I don't care how much money Obama raises, competing in NJ is going to put a dangerous burn rate on his finances.  Corzine spent $62 million of his own money to win there.

    BTW, it looks like political junkies have crashed SUSA's servers.  The page isn't coming up for me.


    Texas was one of the few (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Mike Pridmore on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:31:24 PM EST
    states that SUSA has wrongly predicted and their results go against some of their earlier polling.  Based on the latest election, Clinton seems more likely to run well in TX than Obama.  And Obama loses FL in the general, which doesn't bode well for any re-do of the primary election.  I also find it hard to believe that Clinton would lose MO in the general.  Given Hillary's strength among Hispanics, which may be even greater in the General Election, some of the other western states seem to be in play for her that might not be for Obama.  In short, this latest SUSA rating seems questionable to me in that seems to slightly exaggerate Obama (seeming to almost put TX in play even after just losing to Hillary?) and downplay Hillary.  If they were to just give her TN, which seems reasonable, then she beats Obama.

    Yes, it exaggerates Obama's edge (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:55:54 PM EST
    as pointed out at pollster.com and elsewhere, because of when this poll was done -- not enough time for the post-Ohio-and-Texas bounce. SUSA, the formerly greatest pollster in the world (to show how weird this week has been, ARG! may have come closest:-) started and went with this too soon.

    Clinton 2008 = Kerry 2004 (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by s5 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:35:07 PM EST
    Clinton's map is the same map, the same states, the same strategy as Kerry 2004 (and Gore 2000). I remember hearing all the same "Kerry is electable" arguments, showing poll after poll trying to disprove what everyone knew in their gut: that the American public by and large didn't like him. I'm not sure if Dean could have done better, maybe it wasn't his time or maybe his temperament wasn't suited to run a solid general election campaign. But attempting a rerun of what has already failed twice is a huge mistake.

    I mean, just the fact that Texas is within one point should give everyone pause. Even if we can't win Texas, forcing McCain to spend money defending Texas would be huge in other states. I mean, it's just amazing. Throw in New Jersey and a couple of other tied states into Obama's column, and we have quite a modest sweep on our hands.

    That's why this primary pains me so much. The two candidates are both very skilled, brilliant and passionate politicians, offering very similar policy, with differences mostly in tone and style. But Hillary Clinton vs John McCain is a dangerous match up for us. Everyone knows this.

    It's pretty different actually. I don't (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:38:29 PM EST
    remember Kerry going for Arkansas, West Virginia, TN (where Clinton ties McCain) or Florida (where Clinton has a big lead on McCain).

    Clinton will win WV and Ohio. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by liminal on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:22:53 PM EST
    There's no doubt.  Kerry's appeal in Ohio was limited to the big cities; Clinton extends it with the winning belt of OH-6 and OH-18.  Similarly, Clinton wins WVa.  Obama loses WVa to McCain by 20 points.  West Virginia went for Carter in 1980 and Dukakis in 1988.  It is a true-blue working class Democratic state, and I hope it will be again.  If Obama has 4 or 8 years as VP during which WVians and Ohioans and can become familiar with him and learn to trust his judgment, he can win these states in 2012 or 2016 too.  That's why a combined ticket is our best bet, with HRC on top.  HRC secures and expands the traditional Democratic demographics that we bled to Bush in 2000 and 2004, while BHO expands the appeal in the west.  Meanwhile, eight successful years as VP to HRC ensures that the important working class states have time to become familiar with Obama and learn to trust him, so that by the time Obama runs in 2012 or 2016, the map is rewritten.

    Clinton wins every state Kerry won (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by g8grl on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:59:03 PM EST
    plus Ohio and Arkansas for sure and maybe Tennessee and Florida.  That's all we need.

    Bingo (none / 0) (#123)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:52:08 PM EST
    But  you  won't  get  a lot  of  agreement  from  Obama  supporters.    

    Bingo (none / 0) (#124)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:52:40 PM EST
    You can pretty much count on losing (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:44:49 PM EST
    states with high Hispanic voters except CA, when it dawns on them that the candidate they've been behind gets thrown under the bus.

    All of the Hispanic vote that we pulled away from GWB in the past few years will go back with Obama as the nominee.  


    I remember reading polls after Super Tuesday (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:28:18 PM EST
    that showed if Obama was the nominee, CA is in play because McCain is popular with Hispanics there.  

    That would be a disaster!


    After McCain breaks hard to the right on (none / 0) (#84)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:09:07 PM EST
    immigration, and he will and has already started, Latinos will realize that he is not in their best interest, particularly if they have family here w/o papers or know people w/o papers. The conservatives distrust him most on immigration, and it will be the issue he moves most toward them on, imo.

    Second, what if the black vote--that has gone 90% for Obama--decides not to show up? That will put a strain on Democratic chances.

    Same thing with white women and Sen. Clinton. Essentially, if any big demographic abandons the party, the Democrats are in trouble. It's not like either one of the Dems broke 300 EVs in that early poll.


    The Flip Applies in Style, Temperament (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by catfish on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:23:21 PM EST
    (Just as an exercise, let's consider the reverse - just ask yourself, can you say Obama is more like Kerry than Hillary is like Kerry?)

    That Hillary is getting the working class, less educated vote, should not be ignored - that's a group that will cross over to McCain.

    She's the beer drinker, like Kerry was the wine drinker. Obama comes across as an elitist. She, to those who have given her a look, as pragmatic, unglamerous, down-to-earth.

    Over time - Obama magic wears off, as does Hillary hate.

    In the Myers-Briggs makeup, she falls into the same category as Harry Truman "the buck stops here".

    Like you, this is why this primary pains me so much. We're nominating a black John Kerry. Obama didn't win Texas for chrissakes. He should have won Texas. Obama vs. McCain - you think McCain can't attract Independents? Did you notice Hillary took more Independents in Ohio?


    And the base (none / 0) (#93)
    by catfish on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:30:05 PM EST
    Meant to say Hillary gets the base and proved in Ohio she can get Independents.

    Clinton vs. McCain is the only hope (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:56:59 PM EST
    for many voters, especially older voters. Obama's inexperience vs. McCain is not polling well for us.

    Joint ticket and joint campaign (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by koshembos on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:39:18 PM EST
    Might solve all these problems and avoid splitting the party, which is sure to occur if either of them runs without the other.

    Joint ticket (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by wasabi on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:47:08 PM EST
    I see this as the only way to go.  Each candidate has their own constituencies.  If you pick one but not the other, there is no guarantee that the "others" supporters will come along for the ride.

    There's just the one tiny detail... (none / 0) (#28)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:45:43 PM EST
    Of who gets top billing. ;)

    I Say (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:47:20 PM EST
    Flip a coin and get on with it.

    Best solution I've heard (none / 0) (#35)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:01:42 PM EST
    plus one could sell enough tickets on pay-per-view to fund the the nominee's campaign.

    Actually I'd be surprised if Clinton accepted the V.P. nomination, given her age and the experience argument.


    Pay Per View (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:04:28 PM EST
    Great idea! I am sure that HRC would accept the veep position. She is a democrat first, and would not go against what is best for winning the GE.

    I don't think so (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:29:40 PM EST
    I think she becomes a more powerful player in the Senate - a "party elder" if you will.  Kennedy can move over.  And anything that comes to health care will have to go through her first or it won't get done.

    and what about Obama (none / 0) (#63)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:37:36 PM EST
    do you think he could become the senate majority leader if Clinton gets the nom?

    he will take the vp slot (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CST on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:44:56 PM EST
    And she will give it to him

    Not a chance. (none / 0) (#70)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:47:53 PM EST
    The Senate is all about seniority. Obama would have to spend another decade or two in that chamber before they would even think about making him majority leader. Even Hillary is desperately under-qualified for the seat by the usual marking stick, but she's older and has a lot more years in D.C. to pull off of, so it's at least conceivable.

    If Obama is looking to advance his political career after an unsuccessful run, he'd be much better off making a gubernatorial run in Illinois.  


    right (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:51:37 PM EST
    so he is qualified to be President of the United States, but not to be Senate Majority Leader.  For the latter, he needs to go back and get more experience...

    It's not about qualified (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CST on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:55:43 PM EST
    It's about getting the job.  The sentate doesn't elect presidents, they do elect majority leaders.

    Honestly, that's a ridiculous argument. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:56:56 PM EST
    Because the two jobs are nothing alike. Just because someone is qualified to be the CEO of a company doesn't mean they are qualified to run the IT Department. Different jobs - different qualifications.

    Obama isn't going to become a better president (or a better candidate) by spending more time in Congress. Neither is Hillary. If anything, the reverse is true - long-time legislators rarely make good candidates or good presidents.


    Obama's whole campaign (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:00:35 PM EST
    has been built around his ability to bring together democrats and republicans, yet you have just admitted that Obama could not "unite" the senate, and that he is not well-respected enough to bring change.

    Yet, you think that he is still qualified to be president?

    Let's be clear here--this is not the CEO running IT.  It is apples and apples.  Being president is about governing, as is running the senate.

    I repeat: if he cannot unite senators, how can he unite the country?  If he cannot control senators, how can he get any legislation passed?


    What? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:19:17 PM EST
    I have no idea if Obama could unite the Senate or not. I'm just saying he would not be elected Majority Leader right now. That has nothing to do with his ability/inability to unite, and everything to do with how the Senate works.

    The Senate is all about seniority. Who has been around the longest. It's the ultimate good old boys (and girls) club. Obama is a junior Senator. He could be the risen Christ himself and he would still not be majority leader because he's just a junior Senator.

    Now, if Obama were to spend another 10-20 years in the Senate, he'd probably be an excellent candidate for Majority Leader. But that wouldn't make him a better Presidential candidate. If anything, it would probably make him a much worse one...senior Senators rarely make good presidential candidates because they inevitably have a long record that their opponent can pick apart and spin any which way.

    Being Senate Majority Leader really isn't anything like being President. They have completely different responsibilities - reducing both to 'governing' is an oversimplification of absurd proportions.

    I'm not trying to convince you that Obama is a good candidate. But the argument that he's a bad candidate because he wouldn't be made Senate Majority leader if Clinton wins is ludicrous. He's running for President, not Senate Majority Leader. Evaluate him on that yardstick.


    not exactly (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:05:52 PM EST
    I didn't say he couldn't unite the senate.  I just don't think they are his first choice.  And it is not apples to apples or the senate majority leader would always get elected president.  Negotiating with the senate is ONE job of the president, but not the only job.

    Also, that is like saying that only old, white men should vote for president (besides Hillary and Obama of course)


    I just want to know how many times (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:59:22 PM EST
    the youth vote has elected a president for us. Seriously. Look at our last "children's crusades."

    you are aware (none / 0) (#107)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:11:55 PM EST
    of how bills get passed, right?  Through the senate?  I know that Bush has confused things a bit lately, making it seem as if the president acts for all three branches, but to any president prior to the Bush Doctrine ("suspend the Constitution or we'll all DIE!") negotiating the senate is priority number one for any president.

    Do you know the reason why healthcare didn't get passed under Bill Clinton when both houses were controlled by the dem party?


    The CEO (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:24:40 PM EST
    in my company DOES run the IT Dept. All direction for the business starts at the top. He runs all departments through his goals for the business. Technology for technology sake does nothing for a business.  

    When I look at the experience, I'm looking for some one who knows the system. A mover and a shaker. I'm not looking for how many years they have been in the Senate.


    (snort) (none / 0) (#83)
    by katiebird on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:07:38 PM EST
    Wow.  THAT sums it up, doesn't it?

    Best for the party (none / 0) (#43)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:11:42 PM EST
    Dunno, I think he'd help her as vp, but v.v. she'd probably be a distraction from his message -- I can hear Russert asking him how he can reconcile his postpartisanship with his v.p. choice already.  Maybe she could ask him to choose Wes Clark (Southerner, white male for the *ists out there).

    Best for the party (none / 0) (#126)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:58:40 PM EST
    means  Obama  puts his own  ego  in  check,  accepts  the  vp  slot,  serves  8  years  there  to earn  more  experience,  and  then   takes his own  8 years  in  the  White  House.  

    Best for  the party.


    I don't think either of the candidates' bases (none / 0) (#86)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:14:07 PM EST
    would like to see them be VP. For her camp, it's beneath her. For his camp, it would be a sign that he is in fact no different than anybody else, eventually selling out to the all-mighty Clintons.

    The nominee will have to win this thing on their own, and honestly the loser will, i think, secretly be okay with running against McCain in 4 years without the thorn in their side of the other's presence.


    It's not he's "beneath" her for me -- (none / 0) (#102)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:03:13 PM EST
    although the imagery could be a problem with some. But with even more voters, I think he's not at all what she needs as a v.p. -- and maybe what he needs, too: military experience (her committee service puts her far ahead on this, but still it would help) and not another centrist. If he is. I really can't tell, but he talks about moving farther right, not left.

    If Obama is not on the ticket (none / 0) (#109)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:14:41 PM EST
    there will be a major problem with the AA community.....

    The scenario would be Obama has more elected delegates, Hillary wins the nomination, then Hillary kicks Obama to the curb and takes yes-man Bayh....A recipe for disaster...


    Since a lot of Clinton supporters don't seem to (none / 0) (#116)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:38:49 PM EST
    think he's much of a Democrat anyway, do you think Obama could be persuaded to run a 3rd party ticket? Or would he just wait to be president in 4 or 8 years?

    In my dream of dreams (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:52:25 PM EST
    an Obama/Bloomberg ticket would be my favorite...I just don't think it will happen....

    Hillary had a nice win in Ohio....if she doesn't overreach and go too negative, she seems likely to find a way to the nomination....Not my first choice.....

    I might be able to vote for McCain under some scenarios, a pro-choice VP and plan on health care (perhaps a combination of tax credits or subsidies).....But that seems remote....

    If it is Hillary v. McCain, one needs to make a choice......

    And who knows Obama might pull it out...

    VP would be hard for Obama to turn down....If he does and Hillary loses, he will get blamed....If he does, and Hillary wins, her VP (most likley Bland Bayh) takes his place in the pecking order....

    Obama will not want to take it, but he may not have a choice....  


    Obama/Bloomberg would be Unity08's (none / 0) (#122)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:43:10 PM EST
    dream ticket no doubt. I will admit that I would vote for that ticket.

    I tend to think President Clinton knows his electoral politics, so I tend to believe Obama blew his chance in TX and made an idiot of himself in OH. That just really ticked me off at him; he handled that whole state so incredibly poorly, and his belief that being different means getting hit below the belt and not responding confounds me. The difference is in the White House; refuse to fight and Sen. Clinton is gonna rip your throat out and throw your voice box in the garbage, which she has come close to doing, and while I hate it, I also know it's how you get to be president; that's just reality. He needs to fight. Otherwise, she wins the "I'm a fighter" meme by default.

    Absent Obama, I will not vote for McCain b/c I really do think Iraq has been mismanaged and needs to be re-addressed. I also won't for a hardcore homophobic agenda, which the GOP represents.

    If Obama took the VP slot, it'd crush his image as the new way, but it would keep him in line to get the WH in a traditional method, so maybe he takes it and moves on. I'd rather he wait, stepping up his efforts in the Senate and holding the party's feet to the fire.


    Wouldn't McCain love that. (none / 0) (#120)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:20:26 PM EST
    I can't think of a better way to get a Republican president elected than to pit Obama and Clinton against each other in the GE. Talk about splitting the base. Right down the middle. Ouch.

    I have no prob with Obama as VP (none / 0) (#117)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:42:14 PM EST
    He can spend eight years learning from Clinton, giving and holding favors, moving bills through the senate, all the while with everyone knowing that he is the presumptive nominee for 2016.  Then, both Clintons will campaign for him and he will win the election on legitimate credentials and a solid Clinton record.

    See, I think that Obama really wants to do the things that he is claiming he has done. (Yeah, you read that right)  He just has to pay his dues by actually doing it, and no one will give him the responsibilities that Clinton will--and I am saying that's true even if he gets the presidency. (There's a reason Kennedy and Kerry are backing him; they know they can't push Clinton around)

    I have said a zillion times that I bet Clinton offered this plan to Obama last year and he said no, that he'd take his chances.  If Clinton loses, she goes back to the senate, perhaps as majority leader.  If Obama wins, then loses to McCain, what does he have waiting for him?  He can't go back to being a junior senator from IL.

    Taking the VP slot is the safe bet, and if all those stories about Obama's late-night card games are true, then he is always the person taking the safe bets.


    Obama has at times (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:02:57 PM EST
    been candid about his speeches (not lately), saying at one point that, sure, he could get a crowd--"ginned up" was the phrase he used--but he wanted to go beyond that....

    Mondale, Bush I, and Gore all tried the route you talk about--it really doesn't work out so well for VPs....Obama most likely would want to be Governor of Illinois if he doesn't get the nomination.....But circumstances would make it difficult for him to walk out of the convention...

    The only way he would "want" the VP slot if he couldn't get the nomination, is if he thought Hillary would lose....and that would be unlikely with both of them on the ticket.


    But my point was that you would have a (none / 0) (#125)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:52:48 PM EST
    problem with her being VP.

    I also agree with MKS that the thought of either party getting 16 years in the White House seems highly unlikely. Bush I got lucky with a horrible Democrat nominee; otherwise he would have lost soundly. Dukakis led by 18 points leaving the convention.

    Obama should not take VP. Hillary would win and he'd have a hard time winning down the road. Look at the first Clinton VP.

    If Obama is the nominee, Sen. Clinton could go back and take over Majority Leader or join the ticket and take the same chance you say he should take. Of course, she will be almost 70 in 2016, and I personally think we've elected our last senior citizen for a while in Bush I. That's just my personal opinion. But she would still make history and she and her husband could still accomplish large swaths of their agenda while helping Obama accomplish his. I would not pick her if I were Obama, though. He needs a Wes Clark or Sam Nunn or Bill Richardson.

    I'll not get into the candidate criticisms, as this is not the thread for that, but I take your opinion in respectful disagreement.


    I meant the VP job is beneath her. (none / 0) (#115)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:36:58 PM EST
    I would say you're right about the demographic needs, but the excitement and motivation factors would probably outweigh those things if the two of them could in fact mend fences--and they probably could--I just don't think their bases would be motivated to support a combined ticket.

    That's just my opinion. I'll vote for her even though I'd rather vote for him, but I also was more likely to vote 2 years ago than a lot of the people who have joined these movements.


    I think a key issue will be (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:06:35 PM EST
    McCain's funding.  If he can't get out from under his committment, he will be at a severe disadvantage.

    He'll have his 527 buddies spending truckloads, but will essentailly be watching most of the action from the sidelines.

    Lady Lunchbucket (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:33:16 PM EST
    will do quite well....

    Hillary has finally connected her tale of perserverance and combativeness to a broader narrative....Prior to Ohio, it seemed to be largely a matter of personal vindication...."I have found my voice..." but to say what?  She was tough but that seemed mainly about sticking it to the right wing....Even Tina Feys's "b*tch is the new black" was still mainly about Hillary personally....

    Hillary did have a sense of solidarity with white women over 50 who could identify with her personal struggles....But she had not shown how she won over upstate New York.

    Her win in Ohio shows that she is tough and combative--not to achieve personal vindication-- but to fight for the little guy....It really is fascinating that she is now seen as culturally conservative in many ways...She will win in a lot of states...She will still see resistance in many too....But before she was often seen as an elitist lecturing those who were not as smart as she, now she can win over a lot of people on the basis she will fight for them--not herself....She was finally able to get that message across....

    The dark underbelly to her support in Appalachia is the exit polling showing that many whites who voted for her did so because of racial concerns...The answer here seems obvious--she will need to put Obama on the ticket and in effect tell those harboring suspicions about race to suck it up....

    She will have to convince Obama to take the VP slot, and she can close that deal by telling Obama to suck it up too.  She has the obvious moral authority to do that now.....She has absorbed every conceivable blow (she did not deflect them like Reagan but she took heavy shots and survived) and there is nothing that can be said about her that hasn't already been said--and I don't think she cares about that anymore....

    A Hillary/Obama ticket wins all of Gore's states (including Washington and Oregon where Obama will need to work his magic) New Hampshire where Kerry won, plus Arkansas (that gives her the win) plus Nevada (Latinos make the difference.)  And yes, I think she takes Ohio and Florida....

    Iraq will be moot....The last combat casualty was on 2/24 almost two weeks ago....Since then, there was one fatality in a vehicle accident and one soldier died stateside after being wounded months ago.....I suspect that the deaths of U.S. troops will be fewer than 10 this month.  There will no longer be any doubt by October that we not only can (because Iraq will not fall apart)but should bring our troops home....

    I am not sure of the mechanics of how Hillary wins the nomination given the delegate count....But she has melded her personal narrative into a broader message about helping the middle class...That message will win and perhaps put back together the FDR coalition....

    Did you always see this or recently (none / 0) (#94)
    by catfish on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:34:18 PM EST
    "It really is fascinating that she is now seen as culturally conservative in many ways"

    Just curious if you saw this potential early on or just recently. And if you were always in her camp or are neutral.


    I am for Obama (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:48:42 PM EST
    I hope he wins...

    Hillary's blue collar appeal has seemed to me more potential than actual.....She is in many ways a doctrinaire liberal...not usually a strong selling point for me....I am not a fan of her price controls on ARMs....I like Obama's health plan's lack of mandates....

    She always seemed more Gloria Steinem than Norma Rae.....The good ol' boys might vote for Norma Rae but not Gloria.....


    No way; she's middle-class all the way (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:07:09 PM EST
    which, with Bill coming from poverty, is why both of them are so disliked by the D.C. Beltway types. You really don't know their backgrounds, and didn't see these connections that so resonate with voters? They hear middle-class (and Midwestern) in her voice, while he sounds (although he's actually a Westerner) very Eastern upper-class -- except when talking to an AA crowd, but he comes off as Eastern upper-class in national debates. As did Kerry. . . .

    Cream (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:11:23 PM EST
    Obama and the Clintons are all Ivy-League educated and come from families of little wealth....

    I hear the flat Chicago vowell sounds in Hillary's voice...but rich, corporate lawyers in Chicago sound like that too

    Trying to be nice here....


    more risk and more potential reward (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:16:26 PM EST
    I think this is dead on.
    I always thought he would win or lose in a landslide.

    I'm suprised (none / 0) (#4)
    by OldCoastie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:23:31 PM EST
    that WA and OR are not blue on both maps. I figured those 2 were automatic gimmes...

    don't be (none / 0) (#22)
    by Nasarius on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:38:37 PM EST
    They were close for Kerry. Definitely swing states.

    But the media markets ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:08:58 PM EST
    are fairly cheap and you don't need to do major message crimp to win there. Run lots of "green jobs" ads.  Then just boost turnout in the metro eras, Portland and SeaTac, and you're golden.

    I've seen a lot of changes in ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Meteor Blades on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:23:43 PM EST
    ...my life, but I suppose the worst thing about that map - its reflection of the Electoral College's antiquated role in our politics - will still be with you when my urn is gathering dust on some shelf.

    If he gets the nomination (none / 0) (#11)
    by Manuel on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:32:56 PM EST
    Obama will need to reach out to HC voters.  His claim that he will get them by default is contradicted by these maps.  What can he do to reach out?

    These maps should also temper the degree to which the campaigns go negative in the next few weeks.  They are playing with fire.

    I agree that Obama is not (none / 0) (#14)
    by kenosharick on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:34:18 PM EST
    fully vetted. I am afraid this Rezko thing will blow up after it is too late. Hillary brings no nasty surprises. Not only NJ could be lost with him, but midwestern states like Wis,Minn, Iowa as well.

    Is she really not vetted? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Maggie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:04:16 PM EST
    Vetted would imply that false accusations have been set aside.

    But in the case of the Clintons that's simply not so.  They are trouble-magnets.  I fully expected every bit of the old dirty laundry to resurface, along with a harvest of new dirt.  The tax returns is one.  The funding for Clinton's library is another.  Who knows what Bill's been up to with his zipper is a third.  The fact that Clinton is playing coy with the tax returns just adds to the sense that there's a problem there.  So you have to ask about the political savvy that doesn't see that with all the question marks about the Clinton's integrity that have been part of the political scene for DECADES now that the Clinton team wouldn't know to get those returns out ASAP to dispel any potential concerns.  

    I'd totally trade a Rezko deal and some rumor mongering about past associates for the huge hell of wrath that is coming down on the Clintons' heads in the fall if she is the nominee.

    And even for voters who think the charges are trumped up -- there is going to be a reluctance to enter into another 4 to 8 years of non-stop scandal.

    She loses to McCain on the experience issue she's trying to ride to the nomination.  She can't counter him on Iraq as effectively.  

    ALL she has is the economy.  Whether that's big enough to overcome Clinton hatred + Clinton fatigue + McCain's experience/CiC stature is the question.

    I think she has a shot at it.  But in my mind she is the candidate McCain is most likely to defeat.


    Bill's zipper? Is that you Bob J.? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:58:56 PM EST
    ALL she has is the economy.  Whether that's big enough to overcome Clinton hatred + Clinton fatigue + McCain's experience/CiC stature is the question

    Seen any exit polls lately? In Ohio, 60% of the voters say that's their number one issue. As for McCain's experience/CiC...Obama is stronger here than Clinton?


    SUSA shows NJ as a tie (none / 0) (#19)
    by s5 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:35:56 PM EST
    It's 43/43. Look at the numbers at the bottom. There's no way NJ is going to McCain.

    Nj could easily flip (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:35:21 PM EST
    I can see an Obama loss in NJ while it is demographically diverse State it also polarized and USA Christie is still in place.

    I also dont buy Ohio for Obama (none / 0) (#25)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:42:17 PM EST
    he lost 83 of the 88 counties he out spent Clinton 3-1 and 30 plus percent of Clinton voters said they would be disappointed if she were not the nominee.  And I'm not sure what happened in the last week other than the poor debate but the guys turned against Obama.

    Doesn't prove anything (none / 0) (#29)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:46:59 PM EST
    Clinton would be campaigning there in support of Obama, for one thing.  Probably she's better there against McCain, but that's as far as one can go.

    Bill really would be the one (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:13:31 PM EST
    to campaign for Obama and win Ohio and many other states -- but Obama himself has made that impossible. Same mistake that Gore made, not using Bill.

    Agree, Cream (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:07:11 PM EST
    Can't  see  how  Obama  could possibly   ask   Bill  Clinton  to help him  campaign  after  painting  him  as  a    "racist" in  the primary.   Not  gonna  happen.

    BTD et al (none / 0) (#20)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:37:08 PM EST
    What do you think of this post in which both candidates make their cases in dialogue a la Thucydides?  I think it's really good.

    Paul Krugman (none / 0) (#34)
    by BDB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:00:32 PM EST
    His post on the most recent Rasmussen polls.  The most interesting part to me isn't the polls, although they show Hillary improving vs. McCain and Obama falling, but this:

    As it happens, I spent early Tuesday evening with some major insider types, who had exit polls and believed that Obama had put the thing away. I took the train home, got in very late, went to bed thinking that the nomination fight was over, and opened the papers to see that it wasn't. Nobody knows anything.


    I could gloat again ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:05:25 PM EST
    about how my predictions (posted here) were better than all the experts. But I won't.

    Wait, I think I just did.



    Isn't your real name (none / 0) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:11:50 PM EST

    Checks birth certificate ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:27:36 PM EST
    hmmm ... you're right!

    Nope, SUSA didn't do it. Robot's initials (none / 0) (#110)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:14:53 PM EST
    are, surprisingly, ARG. It's just a roll-of-the-dice year for pollsters, I fear -- more reason to not get excited about 'em yet.

    Love to discuss it but common sense (none / 0) (#47)
    by zyx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:19:02 PM EST
    should take the place of the map in some things.

    The map doesn't actually give Texas to Obama but it has him within one percent of McCain in its survey.

    Cold day in hell first.

    I wonder about the people they called in North Dakota, too.  My 2004 election map says Kerry lost there 63-36%.  North Dakota has changed that much?  

    No, it has not -- but it could be (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:15:59 PM EST
    because North Dakota is our number-one welfare state. The economy there is incredibly reliant on federal gifts. A Repub might scare them?

    TX will be close this year in the general (none / 0) (#133)
    by jfung79 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:27:59 AM EST
    I do think Hillary would be stronger than Obama in Texas (this poll was taken 2/26-2/28 before the Hillary surge in Texas )-- but this is not the only poll in recent weeks to show McCain having at most a 7-point edge in Texas against the Democrats.  

    should the voters the logic (none / 0) (#52)
    by shaharazade on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:25:43 PM EST
    the math be ignored in favor of whatever system of tallying you HRC supporters find most advantageous. Seems it's all fair in love and war except where you meet the reality of the system, the one you love so much, yet refuse to play by.    

    Shaha? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:27:49 PM EST
    What it is up with this comment?

    I think that's really Obama's ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:26:32 PM EST
    best case scenario map.  Okay, toss in NJ.

    Whereas, Hillary has a lot of room for growth, MI, TN, WA, OR, MI and NH.

    And that makes sense because these polls were taken when it looked like she was on her way out.

    Frankly, I think Hillary is much more comfortable going after Republicans than a fellow Dem, and she'll crush McCain early and he'll never recover.

    She can take Michigan, I think -- (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:17:19 PM EST
    as it's heading more and more downhill in the economy. She has made that her message, it won Ohio, and it could win Michigan now -- in a real primary.

    Sorry, I meant (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:17:56 PM EST
    in the real election, the GE. And by fall, heaven help the Great Lakes states; it's getting worse daily.

    Obama's (none / 0) (#58)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:28:51 PM EST
    "superiority is proven?"  Whatever.

    Clinton and the real (none / 0) (#64)
    by shaharazade on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:38:49 PM EST
    So if the Clinton reality prevails the Democratic rules should change the sea should part and Hill will ride unheeded across the sea bed? So delusional. Obama is a valid and strong candidate who's opposition to  Hillary's been there done that  candidacy, featuring all the nasty tricks we've learned to hate, is not gone. He will win because who gives a rats ass about a washed out do over. Growth what growth does she offer other then fear and the same dynamics of fear? Rightwing or other she will offer the same old! gimme a break.  

    shaha (none / 0) (#66)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:41:18 PM EST
    You know that Obama is a politician, right?

    Uh, he won't walk on water (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:19:00 PM EST
    but will have to slog through that seabed like us ordinary mortals. Jeesh.

    Revote? (none / 0) (#65)
    by jarober on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:38:50 PM EST
    It's clear that Florida won't pay for a revote, and it seems clear the the DNC won't fund it, either.  Which leaves you with quite the mess in a battleground state.

    Bake sales? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:47:04 PM EST
    Car washes?



    My understanding (none / 0) (#88)
    by muffie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:15:18 PM EST
    is that it would be legal to finance it with unlimited private donations.  Obviously, to do something like this would require less political posturing and more action on the part of everyone involved.

    These maps (none / 0) (#71)
    by spit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:48:25 PM EST
    are pretty good for both of them. They inspire somewhat different strategies, but both are good.

    They also won't hold up. I remain dubious -- very, very dubious -- about the quality of general election polling during the primary.

    But for what they do say, IMO they say that both of these candidates are quite electable against McCain, in terms of a sort of "pre-major-GE-campaigning" starting point.

    Obama MORE Suceptable to Media Smearing Than HRC (none / 0) (#82)
    by pluege on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:06:51 PM EST
    Because Obama will be better treated by the Media

    I don't understand where this conclusion of so many comes from. Clinton is tired old territory for the cult of republicanism smear machine; the populace isn't buying any new spin; people that bought the smearing aren't changing their minds, but neither are people that have rejected the character assassination buying any new crap. At this point, the media's smearing of Clinton just comes across as gang rape and the pushback is getting very effective. I believe the republican cultists smearing HRC are close to neutered, or have at least accomplished their worst.  

    Obama on the other hand is completely virgin territory for smearing. They can float new trial smears nearly every week from now to election day, and the accumulation and quantity alone, regardless of accuracy will be a significant drag on him. It will be a game amongst mccain's base to see which new smear sticks or lasts longest. They will have a field day unleashing 8 years of pent-up demand attacking a national-level Democrat. They will also tie Obama and his team up responding to each new bizzarro accusation and lie. Furthermore, without most of the electorate knowing him well, there are many that will be suceptable to accepting the lies and smears.

    I think Obama is far more vulnerable to the harsh treatment by the media than Clinton.

    Based on the numbers from SUSA (none / 0) (#95)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:35:07 PM EST
    Obama currently breaks 55% in 4 states vs. McCain's 1.

    Sen. Clinton breaks 55% in 2 vs. McCain's 6.

    So, Obama--hypothetically today--would win more states (24-20) and more ECVs (280-276). He also has fewer states (1-6) where he gives up a significant % of the vote, but more states (4-2) where he gets a significant portion of the vote.

    Assuming each Democrat wins the states currently placed in their column, Obama is additionally within 3% in FL,NE,NJ,NC,SC, and TX. Very best case scenario, he wins all those, picking up an additional 102 ECVs. Assume he cannot win ND, so take away 3. That's a net of +99 for a total of 379, a major blowout, if all goes his way.

    Sen. Clinton is within 3% in MI,TN, and WA, for a total of +39, putting her at 315, still a solid and comfortable win.

    It is good news that both are seen as likely to become president as of today, but Obama would seem to be the stronger/more certain choice.  

    Re "winning the big states" (none / 0) (#96)
    by chemoelectric on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:35:44 PM EST
    After months of consideration, I have arrived at a conclusion; and today it was expressed by someone else. I agree with P M Carpenter; go read it to see what I am talking about.

    I am reminded of the late Phil Rizutto, the Scooter, who once had an entire N Y Yankees TV audience (including me), and his colleague Bill White, rolling on the floor in laughter. The Scooter, in all seriousness, had stated his genuine, serious opinion that there was no room in the Major Leagues for a .500 pitcher.

    Holy cow, what a whopping stupidity. But we see it all the time, for instance in people like Jack Welch who think it a good idea to rank employees and fire the lowest ranked. I suppose they think that they will get better and better employees that way, but it's in fact a whopping stupidity. (There is not enough room here to discuss the idiocy. Do a google search on "Edwards Deming" if you are interested.)

    Phil Rizutto was an expert on baseball, one of the greats, and yet he managed to generate a whopping stupidity thanks to a mathematical confusion, and I think we are prone to make the same mistake about elections, especially given the stunning idiocy of our political classes.

    I agree BTD (none / 0) (#97)
    by Korha on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:36:49 PM EST

    My problem with these numbers (none / 0) (#129)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:53:26 PM EST
    is that Survey says Obama will win Ohio by 10 over McCain. That is contrary to history and the election results. Look at the Ohio map, he did dismally everywhere but three major cities and one other county.

    Also, a critique of the SUSA poll (none / 0) (#132)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:52:29 AM EST
    that I read on pollster.com points out several problems with the methodology, suggesting that it just lacks validity and reliability overall. And now that you point out the Ohio data -- that state alone suggests the same. Darn, I wanted to rest easier that my state would stay blue, as SUSA says.