Electability: Part A Million

One of the more infuriating pieces of "head in the sand" syndrome that I see is the denial of the obvious - Hillary Clinton, right now, looks to have a better chance of winning states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida (which is NOT to say Obama can not win those states, well, except Florida) than does Barack Obama. Of course she does. But Obama has more appeal in the West, some midwestern states (Iowa, Wisconsin) and in other reddish states (Virginia, etc.). To re-coin a phrase, he "expands the electoral map." These are two competing electability arguments that are perfectly consistent.

Josh Marshall plays the ostrich game and then strangely cites Peter Hart in support basically contradicting him:

Hillary goes deeper and stronger in the Democratic base than Obama, but her challenge is that she doesn't go as wide. Obama goes much further reaching into the independent and Republican vote, and has a greater chance of creating a new electoral map for the Democrats.

Hart is right. And Hart understands that there are two competing electability theories. Not inconsistent theories. Just different. Is this that hard to understand?

By Big Tent Democrat

< "Changing The Rules" | Largest Indiana Newspaper Calls For Democratic Debate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm having trouble understanding (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:20:21 AM EST
    what this "new map" that Obama brings is. Are we suppose to be jubilant that he maybe wins Montana, or one Congressional district in Nebraska?

    Virginia appears off the table. Granted, he's a little stronger in the pacific NW, but how is that a "different map?"

    None of the new stuff he's supposed to win makes up for the loss of Florida, let alone Ohio or Pennsylvania.

    I know Hillary has her own electability issues, but it seems simply obvious to me that, right now, she has a better and more realistic map.

    And I'll even grant (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:21:34 AM EST
    that he's s stronger in Colorado and Iowa.  Fine, but Democrats a) always fight for those states and b) that's still not enough.

    Military Vote (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:34:37 AM EST
    Obama may be stronger in Colorado than Hilary but McCain will do very well in any of the states with a strong military population, such as Colorado. Old retirees and the military in general seem to feel he walks on water!

    and lets be fair (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by angie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:51:30 AM EST
    he practically does walk on water -- disclaimer -- NO WAY am I voting GOP BUT of all the candidates the GOP could have nominated, they picked the "best" one for cross over appeal.  I mean, heck, have you heard his story about the POW camp? Sure, it was 100 years ago, but it is powerful stuff.  The captures offered to let him go immediately after they found out his dad was an Admiral and he refused because it would not be fair to the guys who had been there longer then he! Jeezus -- I (and I think most people) would have been out of there in a split second. And then, when asked about it, he is so modest -- saying anyone would have done the same! If the country starts viewing Obama as "too extreme" (to lift a line from the NCGOP), a lot of people, despite the economy, despite McCain's age, despite Iraq will gravitate to the brave moderate Republican who promises to "keep us safe."

    Contrast that with Obama.... (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by ineedalife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:59:20 AM EST
    running away from a debate after the first tough question. Ouch!

    and complaining about it for days (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:04:27 AM EST
    ... even yesterday!

    Plue do we really know how they will vote? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:36:44 AM EST
    It is assumed those state's Indies and GOP will vote for BHO. Maybe against McCain, those white males will chose the 'manly' man. One who was a Prisoner of War hero. There are no guarantees because of the way they held their primaries. Open or caucuses. That is why Penna was such a good test of how a general election would be. How would the map look if those crossover votes were removed? Maybe not as wide as you think. If I had the choices of widening or deepening, I would also look at the lightening of Democrats too. I would think that the Republicans are looking at widening the map also or in the case of Fla and Ohio, locking it in as a red state. PA too. Do they really want to pick up some small red states and have to give up some big blue states? I do not consider this a win win situation if that is the way they are trying to go.  

    Do you really want to... (none / 0) (#64)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:13:49 AM EST
    ...generalize what us white males are going to do? And that all independents and Republicans are males?   Isn't that just a tiny bit sexist?

    I, for one, feel no compulsion to vote for J. Sydney McCain III.  He is not a "manly man" in the least, POW or not.  He is an evil, sick, dangerous man.  

    His election would most likely mean the end of this country as we know it.  


    Don't Have To Generalize About White Males (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:26:32 AM EST
    to think that both candidates will probably lose the white male demographic. The Democrats have failed to capture this group for quite some time and all available data indicates that this will be the case in 08 as well.

    Also, perception is reality during elections and normally trumps truth. McCain has been successfully package as a brave, independent maverick and too many people of all political stripes but especially independent voters have bought into this meme. The press love him and they will make sure that this image is not only maintained but enhanced during the GE cycle.


    That's a nice... (none / 0) (#95)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:37:53 AM EST
    ...defeatist attitude.  

    You sure convinced the independent white male.


    Come On That Is A Straw Man Argument (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    and you know it. You don't need to be convinced. You are already convinced.

    Looking at historic patterns and current data is not defeatist it is viewing the world as it is and trying to access the ramifications on the GE. Seems even Obama's campaign staff look at these things.

    Axelrod: Democrats Don't Win the White Working Class via NPR

    "The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes."

    Please... (none / 0) (#128)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:08:24 AM EST
    ...since you know me so well, tell what exactly I'm already convinced of.  

    Chuck Schumer explains this well in his (none / 0) (#180)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:07:01 PM EST
    2006 Positively America book its a good reminder of the 2006 winning strategy.  And less than 23 percent of Kerry's vote was non white and there had to be a bitter clinging type or two holding their nose voting. Oh yeah there were
                  All               Kerry percent of
    Under $15,000 (8%)        63%           

    $15-30,000 (15%)        57%           

    $30-50,000 (22%)        50%           

    $50-75,000 (23%)        43%           

    $75-100,000 (14%)        45%           

    $100-150,000 (11%)        42%           

    $150-200,000 (4%)            42%           

    $200,000 or More (3%)        35%       

    And Clinton pull the under 100K in 2004 that was 80 percent of the rubes that voted.


    unreal (none / 0) (#103)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:45:35 AM EST
    Obama represents defeat.

    For the White House proabaly ture but there is (none / 0) (#182)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    an agrument that he can expand the Party in some of the red states, I haven't done the analysis on this myself.  But sure adds to why to why Pelosi is anti Hillary, besides not wanting a same Party executive setting her agenda and one Party rule brings a back lash as we have seen.

    I am not the one who points to White Males (none / 0) (#108)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:49:37 AM EST
    I do not understand why I can't say white males when that is what is pointed out to me by campaigns and the MSM. Am I a sexist? Probably, because I think women are equal. BHO was saying today he can not win over the seniors. Isn't that pointing to another faction of the base?
    If you look at the numbers, our problem has less to do with white working class voters, the problem is, to the extent there is a problem is with older voters,"
    As long as people are separated out, I can point to them. It was said White Male Voters like BHO and Women voters like Hillary.But not all white male voters like BHO and not women voters like Hillary. There, that covers all bases with the exception of AA voters. Another bloc. My final answer Alex is "Who is likely to win the Presidency based on current information."

    That's fine... (none / 0) (#124)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:03:24 AM EST
    ...if you want to perpetuate that kind of thing.  Everyone nicely divided, huh?

    I just don't think that kind of generalization does anyone any good.  Why just write-off entire segments of the population instead of trying to win them over to your side?


    you are looking at a mirage with Obama (none / 0) (#169)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:16:01 PM EST
    MileHi, its OK to discuss demographics (none / 0) (#181)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:07:38 PM EST
    To analyze voter behavior you have to segment the electorate and look at voting patterns and probabilities. All the polls report on differences by race and gender, and many detailed reports on the election results discuss these differences as a way to understand how people are voting, and to project the outcome in states that have not yet voted.

    Pointing out that a particular demographic tends to favor one candidate or another by some percentage is not the same thing as a making a blanket generalization about an "entire segment of the population".

    So if someone seems to be making a sweeping generalization, I suggest giving them the benefit of the doubt. Read carefully to see if they are are really talking about a trend or a tendency, but just not doing so very precisely. When blogging, we may dash off a comment that could be mistaken for prejudice, when we are really just referring to what the polls show.


    So is saying BHO ok now? (none / 0) (#170)
    by Faust on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    I thought that it wasn't allowed on this site.

    According to the latest SUSA polls (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:34:32 AM EST
    here with
    Hillary Clinton 292 John McCain 236 Tie 10
    John McCain 296 Barack Obama 242

    Clinton is leading in 5 states (Missouri, Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Arkansas) which didn't go to the Democrats in 2000 or 2004.  For Obama, he is only leading in 3 states (Colorado, Nevada, North Dakota).  I think it's more accurate to say Clinton "expands the map" because she has 5 extra states while Obama has only 3.


    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:37:53 AM EST
    Need to go for widening AND deepening. Not one or the other.

    I don't get (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Leisa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:47:28 AM EST
    the claim about more Republicans supporting Obama in the GE when they say he expands the map...  I just do not see that happening for him, many consider him too liberal, especially on abortion.

    I do know that many Republican women will support Clinton in the GE.  I have not seen any polls on this, but I know several here in TX and my home state of AZ that will vote for her over McCain.  I think that crossover appeal has been completely ignored.


    I have tried to mention this (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:52:58 AM EST
    with no response in most places. It's odd because I think she's extremely appealing to moderate Republican women (of which there are MANY).  They have been largely ignored. Not only will Obama not get older Democratic women, but he will also NOT get these Republican women that WOULD vote for Hillary.  I know of many that are excited by being able to vote for the first woman president.

    I hear you! (none / 0) (#69)
    by Leisa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:16:44 AM EST
    I wonder, is this demographic ignored because of ignorance or because it will be a positive report for Hillary??

    So many of women are tired of being discounted and belittled, and Clinton's fighting spirit and standing up everyday makes her even more appealing.

    Women and children the most marginalized people in the world.  We can move forward on human rights issues with Clinton in the White House.  Women get that too.


    Agree (none / 0) (#119)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:59:31 AM EST
    totally.  She'll attract her own share of that bloc.

    Protesting their own party (none / 0) (#120)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:00:42 AM EST
    Republicans are supposed to be protesting their own party.  Dems too actually.  Voters are being told by the media that they are fed up with govt as usual and to 'vote them all out'  Obama has no record and he is presented as (even though he's not) as outside of Washington.  Not a Dem or a Rep therefore a protest vote.  Media says Repubs are mad at their party and mad at having McCain.

    The definition of expansion is the issue. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:58:09 AM EST
    For the Obama folks, they really buy into the notion that Obama is going to be able to win in a lot of states that should still be considered real long shots for Democrats - or they don't realise that those three don't even begin to make up for losing Florida for instance.  I appreciate the idea that we give those states a try, but hanging our hopes on those states without other larger and traditionally more accessible states for Dems seems pie in the sky to me.

    I check the two red bluemaps at MyDD (none / 0) (#87)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:27:27 AM EST
    for electoral college chances - based on state by stae polling ..is that the one you mean?

    Colorado, Nevada, NM, Iowa (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:21:26 AM EST
    went for Bush in 2004.

    Ras says neither win NV (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:22:33 AM EST
    SUSA says them both can.

    NM is on the table for either.

    He's strong in IA and CO. Fine, but that's not enough.


    How (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:27:57 AM EST
    many Colorados, Iowas, Nevadas, and New Mexicos, make up for Pennsylvania, Ohio and possibly Florida.

    Case closed.

    Clinton is more electable.


    That's my feeling (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:29:39 AM EST
    Electability (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Davidson on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:50:28 AM EST
    Clinton is electable.
    Obama is not.

    I don't think most people understand how stark the reality is.  This is not simply a matter of who is more electable because Obama is simply a non-starter: he cannot win.  Period.

    Remember, these polls--including the great Survey USA--are Obama when backed by a vast propaganda machine against Clinton.  If Obama is given the nomination, the media will crucify him and his poll numbers will plummet.  I think he will most likely lose MA (currently tied).  That should be the ultimate red flag!

    We have a choice between someone who will likely beat McCain, considering she's beating him now in spite of everyone declaring open season on he--versus someone who's best possible chance in the GE is to avoid a landslide!


    sadly (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:53:31 AM EST
    I agree with this.

    more electability (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by AlSmith on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:23:21 AM EST

    I disagree with you about the media- they will still be in the tank for Obama in their hearts. However I dont see how they can avoid reporting in October on whatever the latest Wight scandal is, or what rude thing Michelle says.

    But you are right about electability. Apparently Obama's advisor said: "The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes," Axelrod told NPR.

    No one has ever won a national election without the white middle class. If Obama has already decided that they are not going to try to win it, then they have started a self fulfilling prophecy   that whites wont think that they should be voting for him (I have seen this thing before phone banking) and at that point Obama will just be competing to see how much he can lose by.  

    If Obama's strategy is not going for the white middle class he is already toast.


    Speculative (none / 0) (#172)
    by Faust on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:20:25 PM EST
    The idea that the criticism of him will increase and the there will be no criticism of McCain is highly speculative.

    I have no problem with saying that Clinton is more electable. That argument is good for her, and there is a good case to make.

    But saying that Obama CANNOT be elected is hyberbole.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:32:41 AM EST
    It's going to take more than a couple hypothetical matchup polls to convince me that Obama has a better chance of winning NM.  NV, maybe.  CO and IA, I'll grant him, although I don't think CO will vote for him because of the gun issue.

    Hillary won the vote in NM - although it was close - and she clearly would be far, far better at keeping those pesky Latinos from defecting to McCain.  What factors would make Obama a stronger candidate in NM than Hillary?


    No one has been able to show me (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:34:34 AM EST
    the map where Obama still wins the EC after losing 2/3 of the big swing states (PA, OH, FL).

    I Think That His Positions On Guns Will (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:37:26 AM EST
    defeat him in CO when all is said and done too.

    Add the (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:56:39 AM EST
    the strong national defense and independent contingents there, and I don't think he can beat McCain there.  I lived in CO for 14 years, but have been gone for almsot 3, but I'm not that out of touch. He could have beaten other Republicans, but I just don't see him beating McCain.

    I've lived here 21 years... (none / 0) (#77)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:23:33 AM EST
    ...and I disagree.  Things change and the Centennial State gets more blue everyday.

    One pocket (Colorado Springs) of military people do not swing an election.  After 3 or 4 tours of duty, a lot of military families are more fed up with the war than your average person.  And who could blame them?  They're not stupid and realize the McSame means even more war and more needless death.  

    The Colorado GOP is in shambles and disarray.  Doug Bruce, Doug Lamborn and Bob Schafer are laughing stocks and people are tired of the radicals that run the party.

    I don't see the independents (such as myself) running into the arms of Old Man McSame just because he'll "make us feel safe".  And the polls aren't trending that way.    


    This ain't the Wild West... (none / 0) (#85)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:26:36 AM EST
    ...and we're not all gun nuts here.  There are actually some reasonable people in this state, so unless he's calling for a total ban on guns and threating to go door-to-door to collect them, it probably won't be as big an issue as you seem to think.

    "Illegal" immigration on the other hand, is a big deal here.  


    If "Illegal" immigration is a big deal, (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:08:56 AM EST
    people in CO will probably just love Obama's position on giving the undocumented drivers licenses. No?

    BTW there is a questionnaire from Obama's past that states he favors a ban on handguns. Now he claims it was completed by a staff member and it is not his handwriting but there seems to be written documentation that conflicts with that also.


    The majority will, yes. (none / 0) (#132)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:13:13 AM EST
    The Republican base will not.  But then, they're not going to vote Democratic no matter what.  
    So what is your point?

    Do you guys just think that (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:56:34 AM EST
    Conservative Democrats are non-existent?  It's the biggest part of the Party, yet they are ignored by Obama and his supporters. And I can tell you that Conservative Dems have no desire whatsoever NOR do they approve handing driver's licenses to undocumented workers. Not at all.

    Actually (none / 0) (#148)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:02:53 AM EST
    based on Axelrod's remark, Obama is not interested in trying to win over the moderates and conservative Dems.

    They "always go Republican" was the remark made.

    I realize he was minimizing Hillary's win, but I found that remark to be one that will be questioned.  How will he win without middle America?


    And you do understand... (none / 0) (#152)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:04:33 AM EST
    ...how many hispanic voters there are in Colorado, right?  

    And that we can't get enough workers in the fields to harvest our crops at a time when there are food riots going on all over the World?  

    And that the majority of the population lives along the Front Range and except for a few pockets, are traditional democrats?


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:03:45 AM EST
    The sort of thinking which says that only the Republican base cares strongly about guns or immigration is what leads Democrats to leave votes on the table election after election.

    Ban on handguns (none / 0) (#174)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:34:41 PM EST
    The questionaire was put out by a group called "Independent Voters of Illinois - Independent Precinct Organizations" and question #35 asked "Do you support state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?"  He answered (or a minion answered) yes.

    I believe they both were asked in the PA debate if they thought DC should be allowed to ban handguns and I think they both hemmed and hawed.


    You use (none / 0) (#101)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:45:05 AM EST
    "gun nuts" and expect us to accept that you have any insight into gun owners who are going to have a problem with Obama's stance on guns?

    What? (none / 0) (#158)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:23:04 AM EST
    Obama's stance on guns is almost exactly the same as Hillary's. His position is slightly more liberal in that he has voted against allowing the use of federal money to confiscate weapons during a disaster like Hurricane Katrina.

    McCain will take Montana (none / 0) (#139)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:22:01 AM EST
    against either Dem. A strong campaign hitting hard on the economy and Bush/Cheney's attacks on state and individual rights could keep it close. But short of Senator McCain punching out his own mom on live tv, he can bank our EVs.

    plus in Montana the ranchers wouldn't be (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by athyrio on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:18:11 PM EST
    caught dead voting for Obama...I live in the heart of ranch country and he is a joke around here....The democrats in the western part of the state drink latte however and he will probably win the primary due to that...which means absolutely nothing IMO...

    he "expands ..needs and If added (none / 0) (#167)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:14:10 PM EST
    to that statement, he dose could only apply with what is now known towards a strong probably in AA Districts within the Southern and Western States where he has 80 to 90 percent and a higher than traditional turn out base who will stick with him as his negatives rise.

    If the as the NYT points out that Obama's ability to strengthen the Party in the South possible west expanded Congressional margins maybe future Governorships and the lofty recognition of historic social justice courage for Party, at the expense of a Dem in the White is an acceptable trade off, to the Party faithful, I can assure you IMO it will not be that requires we want not need thinking, listen closer.


    Independants (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:22:48 AM EST
    Yes Obama does well with the independant vote against Hilary but McCain gets that same vote against other Republicans. One of the reason I believe Obama lost in New Hampshire was that the independant's could vote for either of them and many of them went with McCain. He has that reputation (even though it's undeserved) and the media will allow him to keep it. I feel it's more important in an election to be sure you have secured your base before you worry about reaching out for the fringe.

    That's interesting (none / 0) (#65)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:13:59 AM EST
    So your thought is that Indy's had a choice of voting for McCain or Obama and Hillary and the Dems choose Hillary and the Indy's went for McCain. Using NH as an example, why would we think that Obama was going to get the Indy vote against McCain in any of the other of the states BHO got the Indy and GOP vote? The Supers are suppose to be the ones with knowledge. Why would they not see this in their delegate vote?

    Having worked on behalf of McGovern... (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:23:03 AM EST
    the similarities of this campaign and 1972 are strikingly similar...too similar

    Obama gets his clock cleaned because even with the youth vote, the black vote, the 'intelligentsia' vote, middle America defeats him.

    What I can't figure out is how Obama's characterization of 'bitter and clingy' middle America and then Axelrod on NPR yesterday openly dismissing the white working class as not voting for Democrats anyway...where they plan on getting the votes they need to actually win.

    Hillary is continually proving that Obama can not win the general election.

    It also helps (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:56:25 AM EST
    that Hillary (and Bill) worked for McGovern as well, so they too know what Obama's doing/where he'll end up...hence the strength of her committment to not backing down/dropping out.  ;)

    The intelligencia vote is now Hillary's (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:58:23 AM EST
    per the PA exit poll, post grads prefer Clinton, 51 to 48. But try getting that through the CW. Sigh...

    The 'no college' voter does too. But rather than think of them as low info, I see them as low opportunity. It is class/money that prevents most kids from keeping up with college.

    And the traditional Democratic compassionate policy of Clinton is more appealing than the new YOYO crap that brings in the Independants and Republicans, who may be anti war, but in domestic policy they are still selfish YOYOs (if you can get them to discuss actual policy they seem very panicked about social security/healthcare mandates...which might be youthful ignorance: They should read about FDR.)

    This election will either bring back the working class lost to us for 30 years, if Clinton runs in the GE... or bring in these antiwar young Republicans and Independants, if Obama runs in the GE.

    Either way, it will be a big change for how Democrats are defined:

    The return of the Reagan Democrats would put the nail in the coffin of the RW attacks on us as being elite effete snobs, and strengthen our common man roots. Obama's Indie, Republican voters will pull the Democratic party out of its traditionally 'brother's keeper' shape, and reshape it as an antiwar wing of the socially conservative Republican party.


    Yes! Yes! (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:03:41 AM EST
    She's cutting into his base.

    That's the key here.


    You're correct that the map is not fixed... (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:25:30 AM EST
    and OH and FL may well turn out not to be battle ground states but after you write off so many states, add in the states that are continually counted as 'blue' such as MA and PA which become battle ground states for Obama, how does he win?

    MA (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:33:54 AM EST
    Right now in head to head - McCain and Obama are statistically tied - remember Patrick, Kennedy, and Kerry all back Obama.  Patrick isn't that popular now and if voters feel their SD's should support people's choice - not good for Obama.

    MA will not be a battle ground state? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:35:22 AM EST
    He has been hovering between tie to +2%

    If he chooses Mittster as running mate, not only will it not be a battle ground state, it will be lost. I am fairly convinced that Mitt will be his running mate.

    I think the addition of Mitt makes McCain more formidable in the west.

    FL is not available to Obama

    Polls have suggested that OH may not be available to Obama.

    I simply don't see where you think he is going to win.


    No, it's not pointless (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:47:47 AM EST
    to look at that data. That's especially because right now the data points to a result not far from 2000 and 2004, for both. There are just differences at the margin.

    And let me tell you, FL, OH, and PA are so important because a) they can easily make or break an EC coalition and b) they are on a knife's edge.


    ignoring of course... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:55:29 AM EST
    that you have just made one of the arguments for Hillary...

    That she is immune from the certain 'swiftboating' that so thoroughly tanked John Kerry but Obama...

    Our candidate may not even look like their nomination-process selves once it's been decided.

    Your candidate has already been separated from his hope/change message that it only serves to hold on to his base. He's toast.

    How many states did McGovern win?


    A problem (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:53:42 PM EST
    A problem the national party has in the Southern region, which contains both NC and VA (and my home state of TN):

    Many folks will vote for local Democrats, but there's a deep divide between what they think the local Democratic Party stands for vs. what they see coming from the national Party.

    For example:  The South has nearly twice as many elected Democrats at the state legislative level than Western states, yet we have maybe half as many members of Congress.  For some reason those folks encounter something of a glass ceiling when it comes to making progress.

    Having worked on campaigns in Virginia and spent some time in North Carolina, I think this strategy is very iffy.  Republicans will go to town - absolutely go to town - on Bittergate.  Repubs are all about using lightning rod social issues to win elections in these parts, because they're so effectively able to characterize national Dems as wild eyed liberals bent on taking your guns away from you.

    I don't necessarily agree with these characterizations, but I just don't see how the national party will sell a candidate many folks think is Islamic (hey, I'm just saying many people here believe it, not that I myself do), with a liberal voting record, who refuses to wear the flag (!), etc.  Whereas I do think there's some chance they'd go for Hillary based on economic issues alone, and the fact that people think they made more money when Bill was President.


    One more thing (none / 0) (#191)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:55:28 PM EST
    Can't edit for some reason...Was just going to remind folks that NC is the same state that brought you Jesse Helms for many years, and VA is starting to tip thanks mainly to affluent Fairfax County and the other D.C. exurbs.  We may be able to swing it, but it would take a conservative Dem to do it - not Obama, for several reasons I mentioned above.

    One more thing (none / 0) (#192)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:57:17 PM EST
    Can't edit for some reason...Was just going to remind that NC is the same state that brought you Jesse Helms for many years.  VA is starting to tip thanks mainly to affluent Fairfax County and the other D.C. exurbs, but not very long ago (the late 90s) it had two Republican Senators, a Republican governor, and the Legislature was run by Republicans.  I'm just not sure recent gains are enough to offset the ingrained Republican-ness and the rural character of downstate.

    We may be able to swing it, but it would take a conservative Dem to do it - not Obama, for several reasons I mentioned above.


    kerry dropped (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:48:27 AM EST
    all dems drop. obama will drop from where he is now

    not pointless at all... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:49:17 AM EST
    the whole point of judging electability is to look at polls for the GE.

    Of course you completely argue against yourself in the next paragraph when you use polls for the GE to try to make your point.

    Perhaps you need to finish arguing with yourself before you start to offer your opinions so I can figure out which side of the opinion I need to argue with.


    We want a Democrat as CIC (none / 0) (#50)
    by Leisa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:57:59 AM EST
    I disagree with your assertion that it is pointless to look at polling for the GE before we get a nominee. I doubt there will be much change, barring more vetting of Obama, which is still happening.  He has not faced that much scrutiny yet.  It will come, and it will not be nice.  So, if you want to argue how the polls can shift, it can only get worse for Obama.

    By sweeping states including Idaho (4.00 / 1) (#30)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:45:18 AM EST
    Utah and South Dakota in the Mountain West - picking up five electoral votes at a time.  It is a long shot to say the least.  I did the math on Michigan and Florida alone and he needed just about everything west of the Mississippi to compensate for those losses.  I have no idea what giving up PA would do to the equation.

    I happen to be a very big supporter of the 50-state strategy, but it is a program presently only in its infancy.  I am not ready to count on it to the extent that some people are at this point.  It took the GOP decades to build theirs.  I think we might be able to do it faster, but just under four years is not enough time to develop the depth that we would need to pull off that kind of win.


    I like it as a campaign strategy (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:13:09 AM EST
    which pulls unregistered Democrats out of the woodwork to start voting: start getting Democrats on schoolboards and city councils,

    ...because they will gravitate upwards over 20 years to get to the Senate and WH.

    But the little Red states are not going to overcome their Republican majorities in one election and pick a Democrat for president this year.


    CA being a blue state. (none / 0) (#42)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:53:54 AM EST

    People, hear my cries:  CA has only been a blue state since Bill made it blue in 1992.  Before that it was a red state, and could easily go red again, as we've got a Red Governator who's really, really popular and outside of the heathen cities (SF, LA), there are a LOT of conservatives and Latinos who aren't afraid to vote for McCain.

    Do not underestimate the power of the Governator.  People may've not listened to his vife Mariah when voting for the Dem nom, but they do listen to him.


    hear my cries too (none / 0) (#127)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:07:15 AM EST
    McCain is being branded as ok on the environment, like Republican Arnie, so Californian Indies believe it.

    I agree, preposterous as that sounds. We have stupid people here too


    I live in MA (none / 0) (#160)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:27:59 AM EST
    All McCain has to do is ask the MA voters, "Together you've done what?"

    MA WILL be a battleground state (none / 0) (#194)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:10:11 PM EST
    because of two words: Deval and Patrick.

    Obama is running the same campaign, down to the slogans, as the man who has proved to be an ineffective governor that has alienated his base. Just the fact that Obama's campaign theme is reminding MA voters of their choice two years ago will be good for at least five percentage points against him if not more.


    Because polls RIGHT NOW show FL and OH (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:26:49 AM EST
    as being available.

    Michigan (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:32:17 AM EST
    Keep watching!

    Michigan is becoming Clinton's secret weapon

    Detroit News April 24, 2008

    "While all eyes were locked on Pennsylvania for the last six weeks, Clinton was quietly amassing delegates in the Wolverine State. And she was rewarded this past weekend with a significant victory at the district conventions.

    This development naturally has been overshadowed by her big win Tuesday night in Pennsylvania. But the race for the Democratic nomination wasn't decided then and won't be by the remaining contests -- not North Carolina, Indiana or even Guam -- because the real fight is over delegates. And Michigan remains a key battleground.

    On Aug. 25, Clinton will march into the national convention in Denver stronger than most people realize, thanks to her aggressive ground game in Michigan.

    Buoyed by party elder support, Clinton seems likely to capture more than 60 percent of the state's 128 pledged delegates, according to an analysis by the Michigan Information & Research Service. Including the 28 superdelegates, which lean heavily in the New York senator's favor, she could win upward of 70 percent of delegates, provided that they're seated with full voting power.

    That depends on the Democratic National Committee, which punished Michigan for leapfrogging the primary schedule. There is no deal yet to seat the delegation. But the Clinton camp is working overtime to ensure the elected slate is sent. Keep in mind that Clinton won 55 percent to uncommitted's 40 percent since Obama wasn't on the ballot. He has pushed for a 50-50 percent delegate split, but that proposal hasn't gained traction.

    It's becoming apparent that Obama should have consented to a revote here. He certainly wouldn't have lost by 15 percentage points or more; polls have pegged the pair in a dead heat. But Obama seemed spooked that Clintonites put forth the plan and the money, so he quashed the do-over last month.

    Now Obama is paying the price in delegates, starting with the Michigan Democratic Party's 15 district conventions on Saturday. The Clinton battle plan was flawlessly executed with an eye toward a contested convention. Their delegate roster is crammed with big names like former Gov. Jim Blanchard and Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero.

    "We wanted to pick people who would be loyal to Hillary, who would commit to her through multiple ballots," Blanchard says.

    Michiganders for Obama, a ragtag group of new volunteers, triumphed in turnout Saturday but were steamrolled by the Clinton machine. Obama has proved to be a master of organization, but he made a tactical error not to plump up his skeletal apparatus in Michigan.

    As a result, he will almost certainly fall short of the 36 uncommitted delegates selected. Volunteers argued that only Obama supporters should be uncommitted delegates, but they were outmaneuvered. About half of the uncommitted delegates reserved the right to vote for Clinton, depending on whom their unions eventually endorse.

    While union officials flatly deny they're in the tank for Clinton, Obama supporters point out that United Auto Workers Legislative Coordinator Nadine Nosal was elected in the 8th District as an alternate Clinton delegate. That underscores the fact that Obama's speech to the Detroit Economic Club last year, calling for higher federal fuel economy standards, went over with labor leaders like a lead balloon.

    In May, the party's labor-heavy, Clinton-friendly central committee chooses the remaining 45 delegates, setting up a scenario of more uncommitted delegates switching to Clinton.

    Given her narrow path to the nomination, Clinton and her aides have argued that pledged delegates are fair game to flip. Although they've since backed away from such statements, the Michigan delegate conventions show the Clinton delegate strategy is being set into motion. What this could mean is four very interesting days in Denver. Although the odds still favor Obama -- who leads in delegates, the popular vote and states won -- he has to be a bit rattled over two losses in one week.

    If Clinton comes out on top in a floor war, we might well look back at the Michigan mêlée as the turning point. "

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:36:35 AM EST
    The News may be conservative but they're a good paper.  My law school roommate forced me to cancel our subscription once upon a time because they ran a pro-Clarence Thomas editorial.  It was a shame because I felt they had the better sports section.

    Note how forthrightly they acknowledge the reality that Obama was responsible for blocking the revote.


    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:44:42 AM EST
    That's why I highlighted it.  I was surprised to read it in the News - no lover of Democrats (I always preferred the Free Press myself).

    Of course, as someone on an earlier post mentioned, if McCain puts the Mittster on the ticket - Michigan will be tough for either Democrat, but at least Hillary has "the machine" and prominent supporters in Michigan.  Obama - toast (or should I say "waffles"? </snark>?)


    Obama campaigned -for- Uncommitted (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:10:24 AM EST
    Obama actually did tell the voters in Michigan to cast a vote for Uncommitted.  That's campaigning.  It's anti-campaigning but it's campaigning.  He also took his name of, which in no way was required or even recommended.  Kucinich, Gravel, and Dodd kept theirs on.  

      The conjecture was Obama and Edwards didn't want to get what looked to be lower votes.  Off came their notes.  And now he complains his name wasn't on there.

      So, give the guy the Uncommitted vote and then seat them.

      I realize that's too easy.

    Nice detail in your post !


    Don't forget that Conyers (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by ccpup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:04:47 AM EST
    was in this Michigan mix.

    Essentially, he went all out and very publicly campaigned for Obama telling his supporters that a vote for "Uncommitted" was a vote for Obama.  I'd like to see that point discussed with Dean and the SDs.


    Conyers? I didn't even know. (none / 0) (#144)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:55:08 AM EST
    Thanks for this info.  That shouldn't be ignored considering the danger of losing the state.

      Also, Obama himself did that, so in effect he did campaign, and a name reflecting what he represented was what he asked people to choose.

      All they have to do is give him the Uncommitted vote.

      Of course, that would still put Hillary's popular vote totals too close to his, but Obama can't win with Mich and FLA not behind the Dems and they won't be, the way things are going.



    giving him the full Uncommitted percentage (none / 0) (#153)
    by ccpup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:11:11 AM EST
    actually ignores the reality of those Edwards supporters who ALSO voted Uncommitted as a way of showing their support for their guy.

    So, in light of what Edwards' percentages in other contests were at that time, they should take that percentage off that Uncommitted vote and give Obama 30 to 35% of the 41% Uncommitted.


    Off came their NAMES, not notes (none / 0) (#63)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:13:24 AM EST
    Corrections (Sorry to have typed that too fast.)

    1.  [He also took his name] off.

    2.  [ The conjecture was Obama and Edwards didn't want to get what looked to be lower votes.  Off came their] notes.

     And now he complains his name wasn't on there.

    Fascinating! (none / 0) (#107)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:48:56 AM EST

    I will not (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by DaytonDem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:33:47 AM EST
    pretend to speak for my state, but my considered opinion is Obama will not win here. Subtract Ohio, Florida and Pa. and draw me a winning map.

    There is obviously no such map (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:38:49 AM EST
    I've heard nonsense about sending it to the House, but you know, if that's your electability argument, we're screwed already.

    Apparently Obama and friends think they can win by forcing a tie (again!)


    Don't See Obama Winning MO Either (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:44:29 AM EST
    He has little or no support in counties outside the normal Dem strongholds. Can't win the state with only the Dem counties.

    Don't see Obama winning Penna (none / 0) (#73)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:20:17 AM EST
    One of the things that should be noted is that Specter, a Republican, easily wins the Senate spot each time. Democrats vote for him. They trust him. I think they would have no problem voting for long time Senator McCain. They like Hillary and she could win the state, but the alternative to Dems would be McCain. They put more emphasis on the person than the party. That is why BHO was pouting and wanted to be left alone with his waffle. He knew he was going to lose in PA.

    Just how many state polls (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:44:11 AM EST
    were taken in the states that voted after Obama started to get vetted/after the Wright thing and his subsequent gaffes/failures?  Let's ask how many people in the states that voted on Super Tuesday and the Potomac Primaries if they have Buyer's Remorse and THEN go to the question of Electibility across the boards.

    How many were caucuses (none / 0) (#67)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:15:12 AM EST
    General Elections involve ALL the voters who are willing and able to vote, unlike the caucuses...

    And again, add Republican men and women and also Independents to the mix and there is no real likelihood Obama would win those states.


    Demographics are destiny (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by DaleA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:47:24 AM EST
    Obama runs poorly among Hispanics, Asians and Pacific Islanders. Hillary does not. How then can he do well in the West where these demos are concentrated? I don't see any sense to the argument. In California, 42% of the population is in these groups. Obama puts California in play.

    Obama puts CA in play? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:55:30 AM EST
    You don't seem to have looked into this deeply.  CA is Clinton country.

    the mayour of LA (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:57:57 AM EST
    that Obama could lose CA.  
    I heard him say so just a couple of days ago.

    Our LA (none / 0) (#109)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:50:37 AM EST
    mayor is her very good and strong surrogate.  :)

    He'll keep on message until the end.


    I think (none / 0) (#54)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:01:36 AM EST
    Dale meant that if Obama is the nominee, CA is in play with McCain who enjoys the backing of many Hispanics (not to mention Arnold and his machine)

    In the GE I think they mean (none / 0) (#76)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:22:47 AM EST
    CA is Clinton country as long as Clinton is the final Democratic Candidate. It comes into play when BHO is.

    The same Obama whose campaign (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:14:13 PM EST
    precicted he would win CA on Super Tues.?

    sorry I misunderstood you (none / 0) (#47)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:56:27 AM EST
    Gambling the certain for a maybe is foolish (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:53:51 AM EST
    Those who say that BO can expand the Democratic map don't have anything to substantiate their claims except polls and caucuses.  The obvious seem to escape them because the Obama people are invested in hope.  I think I'm getting tired of the fairy tale.

    She has potential to cast much wider (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by goldberry on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:54:24 AM EST
    One of the things I learned about PA is that a lot of Republican and independent men registered to vote as Democrats for Obama in order to knock Clinton out of the race, while a lot of Republican women registered to vote for her because they genuinely like her or didn't like the spectre of McCain.  
    One group is not going to vote Democrat in the fall.  The other very likely will, depending on if Hilary makes it.  Multiply that by 50.  
    It is naive to think that Obama is expanding his reach just because of his own appeal.  This primary season has been about Clinton and anti-Clinton.
    Arrrghhhh, BTD, sometimes, I think you are on the verge of seeing this whole picture and then you take a step back like it's uncool to go there.  Go there, BTD, go there!

    His appeal is part of the problem here. (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:05:43 AM EST
    Some people really are so swept off their feet by him that they can't imagine anyone else not being equally in love.

    To Be Fair, Dems Have A Tendency To (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:41:52 AM EST
    underestimate the Republicans in most elections. They (me too) could never image that voters would choose Bush over Gore or Kerry. Although the Republicans seem to always telegraph their election strategy in advance, the Dems have a tendency to dismiss it with claims that strategy will never work. Except it often does work.

    This election cycle the Republicans have hours of  videos to back up their strategy and we ignore it at our peril.


    That is true, but I think this phenom (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:32:07 AM EST
    goes beyond the typical lack of imagination that Dems have with respect to their candidate's chances against a particular opponent.  I didn't know anyone who thought Kerry was so wonderful and perfect that it was impossible to imagine anyone voting for anyone else in the whole wide world.  I knew lots of people who couldn't imagine anyone voting for Bush, but that is a different kind of short-sightedness.  The Obamamania is akin sometimes to that of a parent who has an enfant terrible, but never seems to be in the least bit aware of the child's short-comings because in their eyes the child is "perfect".

    Not hard to understand, but (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:03:07 AM EST
    ... but his votes from Dem men in the states you mention will compete with votes from Republican men and women.  And that is a huge factor.

      And he's a weaker candidate than he was before all the news broke too.

      Breakdowns from exit polling in Pennsylvania (affected by all that news including ClingGate) show that approximately 25% plan to vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee and about 18% plan not to vote at all for the presidential slot and, worse, may stay home.  

      Try the math on that when taking for granted that Obama would take the states Clinton would.  This is too much like his statements earlier that he would get Clinton's supporters but it wasn't clear she would get his.

      Surprise awaiting him.

    They are just saying that (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:18:04 AM EST
    An Obama supporter said 'they are just saying that' last night when I mentioned the numerous polls showing the growing number of Clinton supporters that will vote for McCain and will stay home.  Clinton has the base in the blue states and can take a harder hit in losses than Obama.  She's  less susceptible to the loss of the indie vote to McCain.  The response?  'They're just saying that.'  Complete denial.  I didn't continue the discussion.  

    That was wise. (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:03:50 AM EST
    Too many of them don't understand the concept of not alienating the very people they'll need to help them win in November.  

      Too many are quite serious about this. And many have already re-registered as Independents rather than remain in a party that could treat Michigan and Florida voters this way - not allowing even REVOTES (which would fill the bill because they'd still respect no-seating based on early voting) because Obama said No to revotes.

      That the No was based on nomination strategy is pretty sad.
    Where's the sense of principle again?


    I still say that (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Grandmother on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:06:40 AM EST
    Obama can't win the G.E.without Missouri and after the Rev Wright and the dissing of the blue collar voters he will not prevail here, despite Claire McCaskill's support.  Without Missouri, the Democrats cannot win back the White House.  Hillary Clinton does have a chance here but he is definitely DOA - except possibly St. Louis City and County and Kansas City and even this might be in jepordy if he continues on his self destructive course.  

    And a little off topic - he looks tired and is a little crabby these days.  I don't thnk he realized what he was up against when he started this campaign, IMO

    I Agree About MO (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:45:59 AM EST
    Obama won only the Dem counties during the primary and that was before Wright and dissing rural voters. Can't see him winning in MO.

    The polls (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:14:21 AM EST
    support what you are saying. Before Wright he was polling ahead and after Wright his support dropped to 39%. MO is out of the equation for Obama.

    There are three (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:41:04 PM EST
    There are three states that have voted for the winner in every Presidential election since 1960:

    Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee.

    As I sit in Nashville writing this, I can tell you there is absolutely no way in hell Obama can win here.  No.  Way.  In.  Hell.  What are these people smoking??

    Things these three have in common:  largely blue collar, elderly white population.  I'd like to see how they're going to offset the EVs from these three states alone.  Hint:  They can't do it through winning Wyoming and Nevada.


    Both you and Hart are wrong (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by koshembos on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:13:02 AM EST
    The Democrats can win without the elusive "new map;" Obama cannot do it. The "new map" is an assumption based on sparse data. Virginia started to tend Democratic in the 90s and will continue. Obama is immaterial to this process. Hillary won Washington state primaries, not Obama. So, we talk about Colorado. It's a big may be. Wisconsin voted Democratic before. By and large Obama brings in Republicans who may go McCain.

    The only certainty in the electibility sstory is that Obama will lose in a landslide because of OH, PA and FL and because his hate campaign that will keep many (true) progressives at home. Hillary may also lose, not in a landslide, due to Obama's goons voting McCain.

    Unity and massive attempts by Obama to separate himself from the racist/hate shtick is the way to win.

    Uh (none / 0) (#82)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:25:43 AM EST
    Hillary won Washington state primaries
    This is wrong. She cam closer than she did in the caucus, but she did not win.

    True (none / 0) (#154)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:12:19 AM EST
    The caucuses, which involved about 120,000 people, resulted in
    Obama: 68  Clinton: 31

    The primary held 10 days later, which the voters were told would not count (because the state chose that option), had a turnout of about 552,000 people.  Results:
    Obama: 51  Clinton: 46

    That's quite a difference.

    And we saw what happened in Texas:
    Larger primary had Clinton winning by about 5%.
     She lost the caucuses in a big way.
    Obama then got more delegates while more voters
    voted for her in the primary.  (People are encouraged
    to vote in both.)

     Caucuses really are comprised mainly of activists and students.  The DNC knows this, and it's a reason the superdelegate system was set up, to adjust for some of the inequities when neither candidate were able to get the 2025~ delegates via the primaries or caucuses.  And, of course, to help thwart the nomination of a candidate who, they felt, could not win the election (McGovern).


    I can parse polls until the cows come home (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:14:24 AM EST
    but I always come back to my 18 month old first instinctive reaction to the idea of a McCain v Obama race: 'Ha - No way.'

    It is the only race I've always thought the Dems would certainly lose, and nothing I have seen in the last 18 months has changed my mind.

    I hate the word 'gravitas' but I think something like that is what it comes down to.  The contrast here is just too striking for most voters to buy into.

    the interesting thing is (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:17:37 AM EST
    the Obamans dont seem to mind the idea of  him losing as long as Hillary is denied the nomination.
    I honestly think they would rather lose than see her get the nomination.

    I think it was the whole reason he ran (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:24:24 AM EST
    I know I saw evidence of that in some article in the last few months, but I cna't find it again.  He didn't decide to run until he say she was running.  He really does not like her and didn't want her to get the nomination. I'm not sure why he even wants to be president, aside from the glory.  He won't like the process of governing in the least.  

    they already have started the loser argument (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:28:54 AM EST
    that if he loses it will be because Hillary was mean to him.
    its coming.  trust me.

    I agree. (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:29:36 AM EST
    They do NOT care about the GE. As long as he gets the nom and Hillary is OUT that is it. They have not focused on the GE as if they did, they'd realize he's completely unelectable and the whole "new states in play" argument is built on quicksand.

    I tend to agree with this... (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by NWHiker on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    It's very frightening, actually.

    presidential-ness (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Nasarius on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    Absolutely agreed. Call it what you will, Obama just doesn't act like a President. Can you really see him addressing the nation, or meeting with foreign heads of state?

    Actually, I can. (4.00 / 1) (#155)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:13:51 AM EST
    I can too. (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:49:26 PM EST
    I just think Clinton is the superior candidate.

    Obama could not possibly come off as more detached from reality than GWB.


    If it were anybody but John McCain I would say (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by tigercourse on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:15:59 AM EST
    Obama was plenty electable. I used to worry about Giuliani and Huckabee. Then I remembered that to know Giuliani is to dislike him and I found out that Huckabee ate squirrel y'all.

    But John McCain has the best personal story of basically any politican since Kennedy. Maybe better. Clinton isn't a perfect opponent but boy is she better then a guy who was mentored by someone who screams damnation on America and is friends with a guy who wanted to bomb the Pentagon.

    exactly right (5.00 / 7) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:18:47 AM EST
    said it before.
    the republicans nominated the one candidate who could win even though they hate him.
    democrats are close to nominating the only candidate who could lose.  because they like him.
    ironic isnt it.

    Proving the old adage yet again (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:20:50 AM EST
    Reoulicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love.

    We know who usually wins these days.


    There may have been an (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:19:04 AM EST
    'expand the map' argumnent to be made for Obama agaisnt the other Rep also-rans, but not agaisnt McCain.  He does too well in the West.

    That's true. All the other candidates had (4.00 / 1) (#79)
    by tigercourse on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:23:51 AM EST
    regional problems that we might have been able to exploit. Not so with McCain.

    Then... (4.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:30:39 AM EST
    ...why did he lose time after time to Mittens out West?  

    You give him WAY too much credit.  Or us Westerner's not nearly enough.


    But (4.00 / 1) (#96)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:39:35 AM EST
    If Mittens is on the ticket with him - don't you think that would help him even more out west?

    Perhaps... (4.00 / 1) (#113)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:54:16 AM EST
    ...but Mittens religion is a drawback to other factions of the party.  Namely, the Dobson religious nutjob wing.  Mormonism is more accepted out West because they live amoung us.  Not as much in other places.

    Fair points (none / 0) (#141)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:34:35 AM EST
    But Mittens is also from Michigan, so he may do well there and not as bad as the CW thinks (especially as the VP candidate)

    And I guess the argument could be made that Republicans tend to vote in lock-step - they want to WIN. At this point, they are stuck with McCain, so even if he picks a Mormon for a VP, there won't be lots of hand-wringing on that side. They just want to keep the WH.

    Interesting arguments...


    Oh... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:46:32 AM EST
    ...I don't think there is any arguement that the Repubs will faithfully punch the party ticket come November.  They are desperate to retain the power.

    I just hope there are enough sensible people to counter-act them.  That's why I am so disappointed hearing and reading about these people who will vote for McSame if their candidate doesn't get the nomination.

    But, I guess we get what we deserve.  


    good point (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:45:07 AM EST
    you think those Mittens (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:34:59 AM EST
    voters are going to vote for a democrat?

    I didn't say that... (4.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:40:16 AM EST
    ...did I?  

    Western Republicans don't like McCain because of his stance on immigration.  He is not the strongest repub that they could put forth in this part of the country.

    Please don't try to put words in my mouth.


    wasnt putting anything anywhere (4.50 / 2) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:44:43 AM EST
    just asking a question.
    they will either vote for a McCain or a democrat or stay home.
    those are the choices.
    and with Hillary or Obama against McCain they will have plenty of reasons to show up and vote.
    not for a democrat.
    McCain is an excellent candidate.  I dont even think the age thing will be an issue. if I was advising him on this point I would advise making a commercial with his mother.  possibly more than one where she talks about the "concerns" about his age and explains that she agrees.  he should wait until he is more seasoned.

    Sounds like... (none / 0) (#110)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:50:48 AM EST
    ...you're the one who wants to vote for McSame.  He's an excellent candidate?  Really?  Please enlighten me as to what makes him such an excellent candidate.

    His lack of understanding of the economy?
    His love of war and the desire for more?
    His having lived in a socialist bubble (free housing, education, health care) his whole life?
    His desire to keep women from getting equal pay or veterans adequate care?


    he is an excellent candidate because he can win (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:53:10 AM EST
    and sticking you head in the sand wont change that.
    as popular as that strategy is with Obama supporters.

    Sure, he COULD win... (none / 0) (#121)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:01:16 AM EST
    ...and I could win the lottery.  Anything is possible.  

    Especially when there are Democrats out there touting what an excellent candidate he is.  

    Never mind all of the drawbacks that he carries.  But, let's not focus on that, right?


    with all due respect (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:05:53 AM EST
    I am not the one you need to convince of that.

    He is an excellent candidate for the Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    He has strong support among Hispanics.  He will win over the "seasoned" voter.  He'll garner the white working class voters IF Obama is the nominee.
    Clinton, if she is the nominee, will take a sizable percentage of those demographics.

    I never thought this would be a problem (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:23:55 AM EST
    right up to the time McCain won.
    I never NEVER thought they would give it to him even though he was clearly the best candidate.
    any other choice on the other side would have been a no brainer.

    I was so happy when he was tanking (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:26:03 AM EST
    I was hoping the Republicans would be idiots and let him go under, but they are just not quite that self-destructive.

    unlike, say . . . (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:26:57 AM EST

    Yup - I knew you'd fill in the blank! (none / 0) (#88)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:27:59 AM EST
    Please Big Tent Democrat (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by esmense on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:28:29 AM EST
    Explain the reasoning of those who say Obama will have special appeal in the Western Mountain States -- states that are traditionally Republican and states that have been swinging in the last few election cycles? It seems to me that either Democrat has an equal chance in those more Southwestern states that have been trending blue in recent years, although both share the same disadvantage this time around; they are running against a candidate for whom that region is his home region. Both should do well in the Coastal states which have pretty much become solidly blue over the last several election cycles. What's the argument (other than some polling, which doesn't mean much at this point); I mean what is the STRATEgIC argument, what is the ideological, strategic and tactical advantage he has over Clinton (or McCain) in these states? What advantage on the issues, biography, philosophy, ideology, etc., does he offer? (Other than he's a guy and Clinton is not? And if that is the argument, is anyone willing to honestly say so?)

    Then we get to the pretty heavily Republican states like Utah, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho. This is where the argument for Obama's greater electability in the general election totally baffles me. I can't see one position he has taken or anything in his approach or ideology that would offer any advantage in these states. Plus, let's be honest, he's a pretty urban guy, not someone it is easy for people in this region to identify with and relate to. As my husband, who is from Montana, says, "God love 'em, they think he's a muslim."

    McGovern won all of the heavily Republican states West of the Mississippi in the primaries in '72 -- with the same strategy; young voters, independents and moderate Republicans. But those wins proved meaningless for the general.

    Why should we think Obama's fate will be any different?

    The problem is that Obama's core groups (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by doyenne49 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:35:40 AM EST
    (African-Americans, younger voters, affluent liberals) are NOT gong to vote for John McCain in November if Hillary gets the Dem nomination. They may sit out, and that may swing the contest, but it would still be a CLOSE election like the last two with a polarized red-blue map. And Clinton would still have a real chance in the big swing states. On the other hand, Clinton's core groups (blue-collar whites, Catholics, older voters, Latinos) MIGHT choose McCain over Obama, meaning Obama is much likelier to lose in a LANDSLIDE than Clinton ever would. I think THIS outcome is much mroe probably than a map-changing victory for Barack.

    You forgot (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:43:12 AM EST
    WOMEN!  :)

    And I do believe (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:38:34 AM EST
    that women are the largest block of voters in the electorate.

    What I am wondering is why no one ever talks about Clinton's hidden secret weapon...republican women casting votes for her.


    It doesn't fit the meme (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:54:40 PM EST
    * No Republicans would vote for Clinton *

    According to the exit polls, 60% of re-registered Republicans voted for Obama, while 40% voted for Clinton.  According to the big boy blogs, those 60% were disaffected Republicans who like Obama's message of bipartisanship, while the Clinton's 40% are really from Rush's "Operation Chaos".

    I think those opinions are from people who don't actually do any canvassing or phone banking...


    Electability (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:55:35 AM EST
    Arguments...I believe it's up to the campaigns themselves to put forth their electability arguments.  They must make sure all the pieces of the puzzle fit and that there is sound information to back up their arguments.

    For awhile, they will be "testing" balloons to see what gets shot down fast.  

    I do not see Obama as particularly strong in the West, except for Washington and CO.  She won the key Latino swing states.  He did well enough, but that Latino vote is the key; and he hasn't done well with that group at all.  It's suspect to assume those votes will transfer to him.

    I think she is expanding her base.  That was why Penn. was so important.  She won 2 out of the 4 upper-class suburbs of Philly.  That's significant.  That's cutting into his base.

    He's the one who is shrinking right now.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#193)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:23:23 PM EST
    Maybe that's why it's frustrating hell out of Obamites that she won't just give UP, already.

    I seem to recall the conversation months ago was about the fact that the primary schedule is so front loaded this year, with LOTS of big states voting earlier than they have traditionally.  

    In 1992, we'd not yet have heard from powerhouse states like NJ, CA, OH, or PA. So one might argue that too many delegates were awarded before folks got an adequate chance to learn about the candidates, and we're now seeing the natural evolution of that process come to pass.

    Interesting article on this phenomenon:
    Boston Globe

    Link to list of previous Dem Primary dates:


    Electability should not only be a question for the (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by FLVoter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:17:42 AM EST
    top of the ticket but also for the down ticket candidates.  In Florida, having Sen. Obama as the nominee will hurt the down ticket.  Feelings are pretty much solidified against him and the DNC due to their refusal to count our votes.  Re-election will be more difficult for other dems like Ron Klein and Tim Mahoney who are both in heavy Republican Districts.  It will also hurt the Florida Democratic Party's ability to add 5 more dems to the House.  It is not just about the President.  We must increase our majorities in the House and Senate.  In Florida Sen. Obama will not be able to deliver for the down ticket.  I sure hope the Dems can pick up seats in Iowa and Colorado to make up for those potential losses in Florida.

    FOlks we are way far out (none / 0) (#147)
    by smott on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:58:44 AM EST
    ...from the general to be making hard conclusions on current polls.

    Those numbers are likely to change dramatically once we have a nominee as support coalesces around one or the other (or doesn't!).

    Just because BO is down a couple pts in PA or OH now vs McCain does not mean that cannot be turned around.

    Much depends on the perceived legitimacy of the nominee.


    I do not see Florida changing unless our votes (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by FLVoter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:40:23 AM EST
    are counted before the nominee is chosen.  The Republicans in this state have been reminding Floridians of the Democratic Party's disenfranchisement of the primary voters. That is not going to be forgotten.  Florida Dems have still not forgotten 2000.  Myself along with alot of other democrats worked hard to replace Clay Shaw with Ron Klein (and it was an extremely hard fight since Clay Shaw is like a Florida institution in my district). To now have to fight the disenfranchisement factor on top of the Republican heavy district demographics in the GE overburdens Florida Democrats. Pretending that this will not happen is unrealistic. No magic pony here.

    AGree on FL (4.00 / 1) (#165)
    by smott on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:51:23 AM EST
    Absolutely. BO has no chance there. HRC still does.

    OH/PA/MI where it's at in the general I think.


    Josh Marshall has simply lost his way (2.00 / 1) (#78)
    by doyenne49 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:23:47 AM EST
    And it's sad to see, because he's actually a smart man--he's not just an ideological propagandist like Markos. Markos is a sophist who doesn't believe in truth at all--there is only spin, for or against your candidate, and he's bound and determined to construct reality along favorable lines for Obama. Anyone who opposes Obama is evil to Markos and his crew and must be destroyed. Josh actually seems to be trying to deal with the real world, but his desires and denials are distorting his judgment. And it's sad.

    History granted (none / 0) (#59)
    by DaytonDem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:09:13 AM EST
    "in 2004, Kerry lost Ohio to Bush and in turn, the White House. However, it's important to note that in 2000, Ohio was not "the swing state"

    However the GOP in Ohio now is in tatters. Strickland and Brown were swept in by large margins. We can and should kill the GOP in the GE. I just don't want to waste an historic opening.

    The new map strikes me as a fantasy. (none / 0) (#61)
    by lyzurgyk on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:10:32 AM EST

    Obama may look strong with independents and some Republicans now but once he is forced to embrace his very liberal positions, they're going to McCranky.  

    Winning the general without Pennsylvania seems exceedingly tough to me.  Obama isn't going to beat McCain in this state.   He's too exotic.   PA voters will take the devil they know.

    I gotta bet on winning Pennsylvania with Hillary over Obama redefining the electoral map.   He's unique but he ain't all that.   It's a nice thought, though!

    Obama supporters are out of touch (none / 0) (#75)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:22:22 AM EST
    I don't relate to them.

    True but you then need to also add probability (none / 0) (#105)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:46:29 AM EST
    That argument is generous and doesn't includes the recognition of a locked in identified swing base McCain Democrats if Obama is nominee, and the absolute impossible task, total absence of any remedy now that could prevent this break and rally the base.  So peel off 20 percent as a best case swing factor for McCain out of the known base and an additional 10 for Independents and Republican cross over who will book back to McCain after the Republican assault that's coming and no Obama can not weather them he gave them the ammo.  Clinton peel off some small percetn of young male voters, some AA and normal liberal break for Green or Nadar in 2004 its was 1 percent my guesstimate 10 percent stay home and that maybe but at least 3 percent swing to others like Neo Progressives like Kos pout.  

    Good (none / 0) (#111)
    by dem08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:50:49 AM EST
    at least we all agree that no matter who the Democrats nominate, if it is the candidate we favor: 50 state sweep! If it is the other person: no Democrats show up anywhere and poor George McGovern, who was a decent and wonderful man gets to play the Democratic version of "How we Swift Boat/McGovern Our Own Candidate".

    Should be a great year. I wonder if Alito has a younger relative who is even more pro-business and anti-individual? Oh, well. We will find out.

    Obama Can Win If... (none / 0) (#115)
    by tdraicer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:55:53 AM EST
    Obama can win the WH, but only if the GOP is so damaged any Dem could win. That could be the case, but it would be incredibly foolish to bank on it.

    Almost every election (none / 0) (#116)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:57:22 AM EST
    we hear the same crap about a "new map" and expanding the electoral base from Democrats.  It almost never works but democrats don't seem to learn  any lessons from their losses.

    You called it right with playing Ostrich.  Republicans win because they are pragmatic and nominate a candidate they may dislike, John McCain, when that's their best chance.  They then fall in line and support him to the hilt at election time.

    Sometimes we are too close to see... (none / 0) (#123)
    by SamJohnson on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:01:54 AM EST
    Great Article (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:21:53 AM EST
    It is a shame that the UK press writes a better assessment of U.S. politic then the U.S media.

    Racism (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:36:40 AM EST
    isn't the issue as much as judgment for the job of the president.

    I believe that people thought twice after his speech.  Yes, great speech.

    But the question remained why he stayed in the church and even calls Wright his mentor.  That's the issue.

    Not his race.  

    Michelle's remark also really put people off.  

    His remark about lapel pins put people off.

    His remarks about clinging put people off.

    It's added up.

    I do not think it's about race.


    greek element (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by AlSmith on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:57:45 AM EST

    The writer is kind of a dope if he thinks McCain is unqualified, having been in public service for decades, verses a couple of 1 term senators. The electorate isnt going to see it that way.

    He is right that there is an element of Greek tragedy about the Obama campaign. Like if he loses it was he was too good, too pure and its all the fault of those dull middle class racists.

    Some blogger had identified a Camelot-like illusion to this campaign, like they were just waiting for Obama to get assassinated, because that would fulfill the mythologizing being built up. Then they dont have to face that reality that an Obama administration might look a lot like Deval Patrick or Jesse Ventura.


    It is a fallacy (none / 0) (#134)
    by AF on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:15:23 AM EST
    To say that Hillary (or Obama) has a better chance of winning a states because she won the Democratic primary.

    However, the fact that it is a fallacy doesn't mean the conclusion isn't true.  In fact, Hillary does have a better chance of winning PA and OH -- based on general election polls.

    Reading Josh Marshall's post (none / 0) (#137)
    by AF on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:21:11 AM EST
    It is obvious that BTD completely misunderstood what he was saying.  In fact, BTD and Josh completely agree on the general election analysis -- including that Hillary has a better chance of winning PA and OH.

    The only difference is that Josh draws this conclusion from the general election polls, while BTD places more importance on primary results.

    To Be Fair (none / 0) (#157)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:15:41 AM EST
    my take is that BTD places more importance on the demographics of each state than he does on primary results and the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate within demographic groups that are highlighted in the primaries.

    That's true (none / 0) (#178)
    by AF on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    BTD's analysis is valid, in that it relies on demographics rather than overall primary results.  

    The only thing BTD seems to miss is that relying on overall primary results to predict general election results is, in fact, a fallacy, as Josh Marshall says.  

    Examples of states where the primary and general elections breakdowns appear to differ are California and Alabama.  Obama does better against McCain than Clinton in CA despite losing the primary, and Clinton does better than Obama in AL.  


    I'd Like To See A Few More Polls Out Of CA (none / 0) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:54:08 PM EST
    before I agree or disagree. Don't know enough about AL to really have an opinion but I would think that the demographics in CA would be more favorable to Clinton than to Obama.

    For informational purposes, I would also like to see a lot more data by state on how each candidate match up with McCain regarding the latino vote. I don't know enough yet to have an opinion based on data and I think they will be an important group in the 08 election.


    I keep saying (none / 0) (#156)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:14:30 AM EST
    the implicit assumptions of these posts are lost on me. Why are electability arguments relevant at this point unless one is saying the test will not be who is ahead in both delegate count and popular vote? If there is a split- then it makes sense, but if not- well it doesn't.

    Electability (none / 0) (#159)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:23:48 AM EST
    worked out real well for us in the last election.  

    Taking chances (none / 0) (#164)
    by joanneleon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM EST
    With Obama, it's a great thing that he might be able to expand our base, but we're really taking chances with that, at a time when we really can't afford to take chances.

    With Hillary, we've got some states that are more of a sure thing.  I'd love to see us expand our base, but not at the expense of losing the election in '08.  The best possible circumstance would be to have both of them on the ticket, with Hillary at the top of the ticket, and Obama positioned to take over after her term for another eight years of Democratic rule in the WH.  That would give Clinton a chance to provide the strong dem base in '08, the tactical expertise while we're doing the massive clean up, and it gives Obama sixteen rather than eight years in the executive branch, gives him a chance to develop his more strategic expertise and gives us all the advantage of his unifying plans while still getting the benefit of the Clintons' ability to get things done quickly.

    I'd also utilize as much of the talent of the leaders who have been in the running for the presidency these last few years.  We'd have a dream team, if we could get them to work together.  We've got a huge amount of talent on our bench, and I'm afraid that we're not going to take advantage of that.

    dear Big Tent (none / 0) (#166)
    by dem08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:01:43 PM EST
    I have turned against The Clinton's. but I think you argue a compelling case that Obama is un-electable.

    Since you have credibilty and stature in the Blogosphere, I think if you called for the Super Delegates to consider how much Obama would lose with less affluent whites, and women, maybe some of them would break for Hillary.

    I know you favor a Unity Ticket, but I think Obama won't go along. But If Hillary wins before the convention, offers Obama the slot (which he turns down), then Bill can travel the country praising Obama and making people believe that he himself was for Obama all along.

    I really think an early knock out, even this late, will give Bill a chance to so confuse everyone and charm them that Hillary will have a real chance in November.

    Unlike many here, I think the less affluent white voters will respond well to appeals by a former POW, I doubt Hillary can carry them. But they hate Obama before he speaks.

    I think (like some bloggers) McCain will run his Rope-a-dope strategy of attacks by surrogates on Bill Clinton's pardons and other issues followed by St. John asking for a more Civil Tone; that WILL hurt Hillary.

    However, Hillary should get a massive turn out of woman over 50 to counter the way Reagan Democrats always vote to shoot themselves in national elections.

    African Americans have to vote for Hillary. Bill's charm offensive, matched by his pledge that Obama will be President Obama in 2016 may even make the turn out at least reach an acceptable 2004 normal level.

    the Clintons shrug off attacks (none / 0) (#173)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:24:08 PM EST
    Obama panics.

    She'd caryy Ohio and Penn and Ark and Florida.

    That's the entire game finished.


    I have no idea (none / 0) (#186)
    by dem08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:05:42 PM EST
    whether Hillary carries those states.

    CNN showed multimillionaire candidates and didn't list McCain's total worth.

    McCain speaks like a real person.

    Americans in Presidential elections tend to value things like being a POW.

    I just don't know. I am convinced that a significant part of Hillary's core support won't vote for Obama, and I think many whites won't vote for him, either.

    The party should be unsentimental and tell him, "Sorry, Barrack, Hillary is more electable."

    as a college teacher, I don't see college students jumping on the Hillary Bandwagon, but Hillary won't need young or new voters to turn out if she beats McCain among women and old people and the less affluent whites who are her base.



    Does Obama Still "Expand the Map"? (none / 0) (#175)
    by Decal on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:40:54 PM EST
    Seems to me that Obama's image has changed over the course of the primary campaign.  In the beginning one could argue Obama, as an unknown quantity preaching "post-partisan unity", could expand the map in the west because he appealed to moderates, independents, and disaffected Republicans out there in a way Senator Clinton could not.  However, as the campaign has gone on, Obama is now clearly seen as the candidate of the leftist or progressive or elitist or "Creative Class" or whatever-you-want-call-it wing(s) of the party.  I don't think it has much to do with policy differences but somehow Obama is now seen as to the left of Hillary and consequently I don't see how he appeals to the Western voter more than does Senator Clinton at this point.  

    Where to begin.... (none / 0) (#183)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:30:51 PM EST
    6% of the votes cast in 2004 were from Hispanics.  They went for Kerry 56% - 44%.  This was an improvement for Republicans over 2000, when Bush received only 35% of the Hispanics.  The majority of Hispanics still vote Democratic.

    The question for me is would it be easier for Obama to get the rural white vote or easier for Clinton to get the AA/city suburban vote.  My guess is it would be easier for Clinton to get that vote.  Axelrod seems to be suggesting that vote is no big deal.  Huh.

    She increased her lead in the suburbs, winning 2 of 4 suburban counties in Philly.  That was totally unexpected.

    Look at the map of the vote in Missouri.  Obama beat Clinton by a very small margin (49% - 48%), winning in 6 counties.  She prevailed in the other 108 counties.

    So, will it be easier for her to pick up the reliable voting block of the cities going Democratic, or will he be able to make inroads into rural areas?  That is the question.  You see her rural votes in red areas as a deficit, while I view them as a positive.

    What? (none / 0) (#188)
    by Korha on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:37:10 PM EST
    BTD clearly did not read Marshall's post. At all.

    For the record I agree with both him AND BTD, who are saying the same thing (BTD oddly does not seem to recognize this).