Obama's Horace Greeley Electability Argument: Go West

In a distant blogging past, a lot of us, people like Tom Schaller and me, argued that in the short term, the South was not favorable terrain for expanding the electoral map for Democrats. That the favorable terrain lay in Lincoln's 1860 map - the North and the West.

I believe in a long term 50 state strategy but it is foolish to think it can make sense in this Presidential election. We are basically stuck with the Gore and Kerry maps and need to look how we hold those states and where we can add the necessary electoral votes to win the Presidency. I have outlined Obama's problems with that map and the risk we run in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. But Obama can change the map in the West. In Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Montana. And this data from Oregon gives us some indication - Obama leads McCain by 14:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone poll in Oregon shows Barack Obama leading John McCain 52% to 38%. Thatís a significant improvement for Obama compared to a month ago when he led the presumptive Republican nominee by six percentage points. In three consecutive Oregon polls, McCain has never received more than 40% support when matched against Obama. In the current poll, McCain attracts just 68% support from Republican voters in the state.

Clinton beats McCain in Oregon too, by 6. But Obama is able to do better in the West than Clinton. Indeed, better than any recent Democratic Presidential candidate. For Obama to win the Presidency, Horace Greeley will be his North Star - go West, young Democrat.

By Big Tent Democrat

< WV Poll: Clinton By 38 | Obama Camp Not Interested In Unity >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's fine to go west (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:13:44 AM EST
    so long as you can still sell your product in enough places back east.

    If Obama is the nominee, I think this electoral map might look a lot like 1976--in reverse.

    Oregon and Washington (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:17:14 AM EST
    is the West?

    I'm confused.

    I think McCain will win handily in CO and AZ, and I believe we'll once again lose NV, UTAH, AND NM.

    Actually, it has to be said that (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Cream City on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:08:56 PM EST
    when Horace Greeley said "go west," he meant . . . western Pennsylvania or Kentucky.  That was the west at the time.

    Apologies to BTD, but the historian in me prizes accuracy and context.  So I always react when seeing quotes such as Greeley's taken out of context.

    And, of course, western Pennsylvania and Kentucky are Clinton country.  So let it also be said that Greeley, a savvy politician, would have seen the huge holes in this or any electability argument for Obama.


    1868 (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ben Masel on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:15:44 PM EST
    so the frontier had moved well past Kentucky.

    Yup, McCain's home turf (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:17:48 AM EST
    We're going to have a problem.

    Arizona is not in play (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:20:13 AM EST
    I do not think anyone thinks it is.

    Of course there are the idiots who want a Napolitano, or even better, a Sebelius on the ticket.

    But those are the idiots.


    I think McCain walks away (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:22:39 AM EST
    with CO and NM. As Republicans go, he's a match for those states.

    The under-40s would pretty much have to vote in lock-step for Obama to win there.


    What about the other states (none / 0) (#15)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:21:27 AM EST
    mentioned.  I never have thought of Oregon and Washington as being key.

    Iowa, Colorado, NM, Nevada (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:24:17 AM EST
    represent a 25 electoral vote flip.

    If Obama can hold the Kerry states and flip those, he win 285 electoral votes and the PResidency.


    Pennsylvania remains a must win (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:25:39 AM EST
    It's going to cost a fortune, and still might not be possible.

    PA alone is reason enough to put Hillary on the ticket.


    I've lived in Western PA for 25 years (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by kempis on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:42:52 PM EST
    And from what I've seen, Pennsylvania is very likely to be McCain country.

    Kerry won PA by 2 points against Bush in 04. I think McCain will do much better against Obama in PA. Therefore, I think PA goes to McCain. Obama's only hope is Ed Rendell, who I bet Obama would love to have on the ticket. And Rendell is a Clinton loyalist, but he's also a die-hard partisan Democrat.


    Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#104)
    by christinep on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:57:30 PM EST
    I agree that Pennsylvania, the Keystone State, is the key ... along with Ohio, Ohio, and Ohio.

    Don't count on him holding New Hampshire. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:27:06 AM EST
    McCain is ahead in the last 3 polls, and by wider margins each time. 10 points going by Ras.

    NH Definitely At Risk (none / 0) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:52:15 AM EST
    Also WI  McCain 47%  Obama 43%

    PA Obama 45% McCain 41%


    "if Obama can hold" (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:27:46 AM EST
    is the big clause.  

    Indeed it is (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM EST
    I think I have been shy about my concern on that point.

    Shines is your virtue. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:32:04 AM EST
    OK (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    but how does he flip them?  McCain has deep roots in the states I mentioned.

    And he's very solid in the Immigration Reform area.  He makes HIS party mad, of course, but I trust he can handle them.  He knows what's what with our issues out here.


    i think what they are saying (none / 0) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:32:44 AM EST
    is organizing, voter registration etc.  and playing his transcendance up.  

    That's a big IF (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:46:52 AM EST
    why would you say obama has any (1.00 / 0) (#136)
    by kangeroo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:04:45 AM EST
    advantage over hillary in IA, NM, and NV?  any swing states obama can deliver, so can hillary.  regardless of head-to-head polling (useless this far out), i'd say it's hillary who has the advantage in NV and NM, both of them have a shot at IA (which is midwest, as paul pointed out), and obama has the advantage in CO.

    but he certainly has no chance in hell of taking AK, AZ, ID, MT, UT, or WY, which are GOP strongholds.  and i don't see any added value that obama brings to western states like WA, OR, and CA, which will all easily go blue under hillary.

    but i can't say the same in reverse; there are a lot of states hillary could deliver that obama couldn't.  i know it's cliche, but you really can't win without the south.  the GOP has ridiculously strong strangleholds on a lot of the west and midwest, and the vast majority of swing states are in the south.

    no matter how people slice and dice it, there's no getting around it:  obama's chances are significantly worse than hillary's.  what's more, i have a feeling the superdels and the DNC know this.  my only question is why they don't care.


    welcome, seymour! glad to see ya here. (none / 0) (#138)
    by kangeroo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:53:13 PM EST
    i loved your diaries when i used to frequent mydd.  who's fanboy singer?

    speaking of mydd, i just dropped by yesterday and was dismayed to find a massive, overwhelming swarm of OFB had overrun the place and taken it hostage.  and, unsurprisingly, they were spiteful and condescending as hell.  they were insulting jerome.  jerome.  these people scare me.


    censorship seems (none / 0) (#140)
    by kangeroo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:32:13 AM EST
    rampant in the blogosphere these days.  i've been kicked out of pro-obama sites too, as have many other people this season--merely for expressing dissent.  (i'm surprised i wasn't banned from dailykos.)  at first all this suppression of dissent was just annoying...  now it seems creepy and kinda scary.

    Napolitano (none / 0) (#123)
    by befuddled on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:19:37 PM EST
    was such an improvement over the last 3 governors, she hasn't seemed bad at all; in fact considering our legislature, she's remarkably sane. However, it was very disappointed after our primary (which I couldn't vote in as an independent) when she came out for Obama. I did send all the SDs we had chosen by Apr. 18 an argument on why they should support Clinton, and since then I think my argument is reinforcing itself. We have such a large Hispanic population, many new residents, and a large number of older women, I think it might even be possible to overcome McCain, though he is well-loved. If the candidate was firm and focused.

    Need to add this thread's (none / 0) (#43)
    by riddlerandy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:34:07 AM EST
    favorite Dem to the ticket:

    Bill Richardson


    Dealbreaker for me (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:43:29 AM EST
    A huge mistake.

    He is a definite no.

    that divides the Party utterly.


    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    But isn't the party already divided, utterly?  Didn't Brazile already refer to it?

    So, if Obama's VP is (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:05:57 PM EST
    Richardson, you will do what?  Vote for McCain?  Doubt it.

    The problem is that even though I doubt (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:50:47 AM EST
    Richardson is an idiot, he certainly plays one on tv. "We need to drain water from the Great Lakes to give to the South West". Yeah, stupid things like that aren't going to fly in the election.

    Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:52:17 AM EST
    would seal the deal for McCain.  :)

    It's hard to imagine the (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by brodie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:00:15 PM EST
    gaffe-prone, goateed, Clinton-backstabber Bill Richardson on the ticket when presumably Obama will be asking Hillary and Bill to go out and enthusiastically stump for him.  Another stab in the back to the Clintons and a serious obstacle preventing full healing between the O-C wings of the party.  

    No Judases on the ticket, please.


    The interior West (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:52:59 PM EST
    While I have long agree that there were Dem gains to be made in the West, the strategy to get there isn't just a declaration that because you do well in early Dem caucuses there, you have a lock on it.  Far from it.  First, look at the type of Dems that win in the mountain West.  They are populists (somewhat), have some land & environmental credentials, have a tolerance for the Western approach to the Second Amendment (meaning: somewhat libertarian), and do not have a background that can be characterized as too liberal in an East-of-the-Mississippi sort of way. Based on accumulating info since the caucuses, Obama may encounter difficulty here and not just because of the guns issue.  I believe that the Chicago image will be grown by our opponents and the nuclear industry connection lurking there might not be too appealing to environmentalists. Seond, the concept of Democratic expansion in the West--for which I earlier applauded Dean--will meet a major challenge in the GE in view of the McCain candidacy. That muddies the hopes in Nevada and, probably, in my home state of Colorado. Remember that, next to Hillary Clinton, McCain does seem to have rapport with the Latino demographic. In my opinion, viewing the West as a place to grow is one thing, but wishing it would be a replacement for the traditional Eastern and Midwestern electoral-rich (and within reach)states is quite another wistful gambit.

    Not only that, they have voted Democratic... (none / 0) (#116)
    by alexei on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:44:55 PM EST
    even for Dukakis.  They are not really swing states.  No in a tidal wave election, sure, the Repub can take them.  But to say that Oregon or Washington are indicative of "enlarging the map" is wrong.

    Is a loss in CO... (none / 0) (#119)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:10:41 PM EST
    ...just a gut feeling or do you have reasons why?  

    McSame didn't win the R primary here.  There is no outpouring of support for him that I've noticed.  His pro-immigration stance is going to cost him votes within his own party here.  

    It is not exactly a good thing to be a Republican in this state at the moment.  Their Senate candidate is going to be handily defeated.  They are running candidates even the Party can't stand (see Doug Bruce).  There are going to be some very nasty run-offs between the R candidates--even in places like Colorado Springs.

    Colorado remains one the youngest, most educated states in the Union.  R's may hold an advantage in registration numbers for the moment (soon to overtaken by Independents), but the D's hold both sides of the legislature as well as the Governor's office.      

    John Sidney McSame, III will not win Colorado.


    California... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:18:24 AM EST
    I don't buy the California in the bag.  It's a tricky state.  He will struggle or possibly lose.  

    If he can't win the Latino vote he will lose (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    Asian vote also in CA (none / 0) (#107)
    by DaleA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:16:30 PM EST
    Asians are about 12% of the population. Latinos over 35%. Add in Native Americans, Gays and Lesbians and Pacific Islanders there is a solid majority of the population that does not like Obama. CA is at risk of going R if he is the nominee.

    Obama will win CA (none / 0) (#126)
    by Get 27 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:32:45 PM EST
    I see Obama sings and bumper stickers everywhere. But then again I'm in liberal San Francisco, Gasp!

    And Arnold won't help McCain? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MarkL on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:19:11 AM EST
    I assume that the Governator will campaign heavily for McCain in the West, and probably to great effect.

    Arnold gave a tepid (none / 0) (#14)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:20:31 AM EST

    Remember, Arnie is a Democrat with a Republican label.

    He had no choice.  :)


    Arnold is running for Senate (none / 0) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:22:54 AM EST
    as a Republican, he wants Boxers seat and Boxer looks like she is in trouble.  So, that is why I say, California is not true blue.  It's just that the people who write are in blue enclaves.  

    I really don't think Arnie wants to be a Senator. (none / 0) (#23)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:25:16 AM EST
    That really doesn't seem like fun. As I recall, his agents are out looking for possible future movie roles.

    Boxer is gearing up (none / 0) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:26:54 AM EST
    that is the talk.  

    I really hope not, because he could certainly (none / 0) (#33)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:29:20 AM EST
    beat her. She has mediocre approval ratings.

    I'v gotten letters (none / 0) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:30:39 AM EST
    etc. to gear up for the election in 2 years ( I think).  I think she is a bit scared.  

    She is scared (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by hlr on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:44:17 AM EST
    She keeps sending me emails about her re-election ... and I live in MD.

    Really? (none / 0) (#38)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:31:14 AM EST
    I like Boxer.  I'm not too keen about Pelosi, but I can't vote her out.  drat

    Arnie versus Boxer.....Hmmmmmmm*......Why wouldn't he go after Feinstein instead?  Same more conservative group.

    OK......sorry......I'm off-topic here.


    I like Boxer too (none / 0) (#127)
    by Get 27 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:36:36 PM EST
    She's not scared of Arnold.

    I don't see that he has much of a chance in (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:23:35 AM EST
    Montana. It went 20 points for Bush, and both semi-recent polls have him behind. The two most recent polls also have him behind in Nevada and New Mexico. These might be outliers as most older polls have him leading there. Iowa does seem pretty likely to go his way.

    Why Iowa? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:34:19 AM EST
    I mean, I know the polling. I know the history of the caucuses there. But it's interesting how he was able to accomplish such a victory in Iowa, with such a long echo of goodwill from Iowans (same could be said of WI, I guess) that has largely transcended Wright, etc., indicating that it's not just because Iowans hadn't seen the "vetted" candidate, or were naive, or whatever. He ought to look over what he did in Iowa again.

    Will Illinoisians be able to vote (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MarkL on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:36:27 AM EST
    in Iowa for Obama in November?!

    Are Illinoisans voting in the current polls... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:44:00 AM EST
    ...showing Obama ahead of McCain and Clinton behind? Have they infiltrated the Iowan phone lines, too? Your "argument" isn't persuasive.

    Dukakis (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:39:12 AM EST
    carried IA. Clinton carried IA twice. It only started going red in 2000 and 2004.

    Regardless, Clinton is behind McCain now... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:41:10 AM EST
    ...Obama isn't.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:43:29 AM EST
    I'll trade FL and OH for IA anyday of the week.

    Is that what my comment was about? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:45:49 AM EST

    Sometimes y'all are pretty reflexive in your commenting habits. I'm not talking about trading Iowa for those other states, I'm wondering about why it is that Obama did so well in Iowa and continues to do so well there. Don't just assume that I'm saying whatever makes it easiest for you to respond to with some canned line about FL, OH, or MI.


    Also... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:00:40 PM EST
    ...this discussion is all in the context of Obama doing well in the West, in spite of the West (the parts we're talking about anyway) having very few black voters. Iowa was the seminal example of that. I think that, perhaps, whatever happened -- and is happening -- in Iowa is explanatory in some way of why Obama overperforms in the West.

    FL is completely irrelevant to that discussion. Obama outperforms Clinton vs. McCain in Michigan, but it's so close -- and there are so many black voters there -- that I don't think good conclusions can be drawn from it. Ohio alone is relevant to this particular discussion, perhaps, as an example of Obama failing to do whatever it was he did in Iowa.


    The Southwest (none / 0) (#74)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:07:08 PM EST
    isn't Ohio.

    That much I know.

    It's going to be all about economy and immigration here.

    And Obama's own strategy of attacking Hillary on NAFTA will backfire in the Southwest.

    This is an area that has grown due to NAFTA.  They can't survive without it.


    This shows why it's not accurate (none / 0) (#81)
    by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:20:39 PM EST
    to tag all states in the western portion as "The West". Arizona and NM hinge on different issues (and even some demographics) than say, Oregon. And what about Texas? Other than the immigration issue, how is it like California? My point about Oregon and Washington is that we do not consider ourselves part of "The West" anyway. We are the "Pacific Northwest", which is a whole other animal. Our issues and demos are different from Colorado AND California.

    Lastly, if Obama thinks he has a shot at Idaho, he is the truly the finest comedian of the election season.


    FL (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:32:36 PM EST
    does matter. It's an important swing state and the fact that Obama polls slightly better in some red states, at least right now, doesn't get him nearly close enough to carry them in a general election.

    Actually I think Obama does better in MI because of the black vote though it might not be enough if he runs off enough white voters. Some of the states like MI are a wash IMO.


    IA has much higher concentration (none / 0) (#135)
    by Eleanor A on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:51:27 PM EST
    of college students per capita than Ohio.  That alone may be your answer.

    By the way, Iowa is not "the West."  Unless you want to start calling Kansas and Nebraska that, as well.


    I think (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:27:45 PM EST
    that Obama does better in IA because he spent a year campaigning there. Also he's big into agricultural subsidies isn't he?

    Last Poll Clinton Leads McCain In IA (none / 0) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:49:57 PM EST
    43% to 42% compared to Obama 49% to 41%.

    You guess wrong about Wisconsin (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:13:45 PM EST
    . . . which was 'way pre-Wright, God, guns, bittergate, etc.

    Go look at the polls for Wisconsin today.  And go look at how Wisconsin voted out Justice Louis Butler, the first AA on the state Supreme Court.  That's what happens in Wisconsin when Republicans cross back to voting Republican.

    Obama would not win Wisconsin again.  Whether any Dem will win the closest state in 2004 and one of the closest in 2000 is a big question, after both Gore and Kerry worked very hard here.  

    But we know for sure which candidate would not keep Wisconsin in the blue column.  Ask ex-Justice Butler.


    Last Poll Obama Does Lead McCain In IA (none / 0) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:43:09 AM EST
    Obama 49%  McCain 41%

    CO Obama 46%  McCain 43%
    NM McCain 46% Obama 45%
    NV McCain 48%  Obama 43%
    MT McCain 48%  Obama 43%


    Exactly... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:47:05 AM EST
    ...maybe I'm wrong on this but it seems to be a long-term exception to the "demographics is destiny" argument (which is generally sound, as shown by poblano) in which case Obama should really reexamine why that is.

    In BTD Scenario Obama Is Only (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:03:12 PM EST
    ahead in IO and CO which have 16 EVs. He is also behind in NH and WI (Kerry's map) which have 14 EVs. All things being equal, he would only pick up 2 EVs. That is not enough to defeat McCain.

    Oregon, Washington, California, Montana (none / 0) (#82)
    by 1jane on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:26:07 PM EST
    The left coast will all go to Obama in the GE. The difference in the organization between the Obama and Clinton campaign is what caused Oregon to overwhelmingly support Obama.

    March 2007, the Oregon South for Obama, all local Obama activists, was launched and includes 220 members. Larger groups formed in metro counties surrounding Portland, Portland itself and the University areas which run from Portland, Corvallis, Eugene and Ashland, the I5 corridor.

    The Clinton campaign has relied on "out-of-state" field reps who open the offices. The press/media lock down by the Clinton campaign has frustrated reporters and generated ill will.

    Lastly, walk into the Clinton campaign office in my town and there is no one under 65 years of age with the exception of the out of state field reps.

    Walk in the Obama campaign office in my town and a greeter meets you. People of all ages and races are hard at work. Obama local activists are canvassing door to door every single night from 5PM to 8PM while another group phone banks during the same hours. On Saturday and Sundays the Obama campaign runs two canvassing shifts. In addition, the Obama campaign has events and speakers. Oregonians have all recieved their mail in ballots and have until May 20 to return those ballots. The Clinton campaign relies strickly on phone banking. Now both the Clinton and Obama campaigns are tracking who has not returned their ballots by checking with the election office data base which shows the person's name and if their ballot has been returned. It's very cool because if we vote early we don't get annoying calls asking us if we've returned our ballot.

    Hillary came to my county on Thursday. 525 people showed up to see her.

    Montana will go with Obama. The Democratic Governor is fabulous and the universities in Helena and Bozeman will go for him. The rich and famous who've moved into Montana will go his way too.

    In S. Dakota huge rallies for Obama have happened all over the state.

    The Pacific NW rocks!


    Oregon would likely go to Hillary too (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:31:21 PM EST
    Montana, well, I think that's a pipe dream, but I'm willing to spot you its three EVs.  California, with 55 EVs, is the prize and it's not as blue as people think. Obama will have problems there. He may indeed win it, but IMO he'll have to spend a lot of time and money there that Clinton would not have to spend.

    I grew up in southern CA (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:37:39 PM EST
    and I can tell you, there are lots of Republicans there. Always have been. Think about the fact that CA has only had one Democratic governor in the last 25 years, and he got recalled.

    CA is not a slam-dunk for Obama.


    Huge military and military (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by oculus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:14:26 PM EST
    related and military retiree population, which I think will at least consider McCain.  

    Yup, (none / 0) (#94)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:45:36 PM EST
    Not to mention the Central Valley and the far North. It's a politically diverse state.

    East Bay/Contra Costa County (none / 0) (#100)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    is another place to watch.

    South Dakota for Obama in Nov? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:38:49 PM EST

    By the way (none / 0) (#91)
    by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:40:20 PM EST
    neither Montana or South Dakota are the Pacific Northwest... they are "The West".

    Montana (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:43:34 PM EST
    First, Montana isn't a member of the Pacific Northwest, instead, it's Mountain West.

    Yes, Montana has a couple of college towns, but recruits from places like Idaho and Wyoming, think farming and ranching, so don't expect it to have the same college attitudes.

    Montana loves it some guns, and is a quite liberatarian state.

    The AA population is less than 1%

    Even with the college towns and infiltration from California, Bush won 59% to 39% in 2004.  Don't expect a big change from that.


    SoDak (none / 0) (#108)
    by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:19:13 PM EST
    South Dakota and Huge Rallies is an oxymoron!

    (2006 USCB est: 781,919)


    SoDaK 2 (none / 0) (#109)
    by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:21:07 PM EST
    spread over an area of 77121 square miles, making it the 17th largest of the 50 states.

    Montana's fabulous (none / 0) (#121)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:51:58 PM EST
    governor endorsed Hillary.  Not that it means he can swing the state for her.

    Ok (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by chrisvee on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:44:55 AM EST
    So our strategy is going to be to go west in a year when we're running against a war hero from the southwest who appeals to older voters, Hispanics, and independents while our candidate may have difficulty securing Dem-swinging states.

    I'm feeling better all the time.

    Who is VP in this scenario?  Richardson?

    I don't see Oregon or Wash. as indicators (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:52:46 AM EST
    Washington is strongly blue. Kerry won here handily. And he won Oregon by 51%, so holding both of them is important. But Oregon has only 7 electoral votes. If it were me, I'd rather have Florida in my column than Oregon (25 electoral votes vs. 7.) NM? 5. Penn 23. Montana? 3 votes. Ohio 21. And I continue to believe Florida would be very much in play for Clinton.

    I realize this is all about strategy and that squeaking by with 5 votes somewhere in the west still wins the presidency but since the Schaller argument has become so popular, eeking out those five votes becomes the imperative, do-or die. And to my mind, that's a pretty desperate map for Obama, especially if the midwest is considered as difficult for him as the south.

    I asked the other day if CO can be counted as a serious possible win for Obama and the responses I got were basically "no". Has something changed in CO I'm not aware of?

    Obama's Map of Desperation.

    Ditto (none / 0) (#68)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:56:53 AM EST
    What I see is that the Democrats are relying upon the "hold-your-nose" idea.

    They can't lose, in other words.

    This is their year.

    Even if Obama gets elected by that method, I could almost guarantee he'll lose Congress, then.

    This is a classic year for voters to split it.

    I don't dislike Obama, personally.  I am mad at the Democratic Party leaders.

    I can see him getting the presidency, and then I can see the momentum shift to block him with a Republican-dominated congress.

    Back to the same old story.  blech

    And 4 years of nothing.


    i agree the maps will be different for each (1.00 / 3) (#1)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:11:40 AM EST
    but really, i think we need to focus on Obama's map given he's our nominee.

    He isn't (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:13:58 AM EST
    our nominee quite yet. I really wish people could see that.

    Given that he is (none / 0) (#22)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:24:31 AM EST
    the likely Dem nominee, it seems to me there are two choices for the core of the pary:  support Hillary 2012 or not.

    Actually no. If you were a real stickler (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by MarkL on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:18:26 AM EST
    for accuracy, instead of an annoying rube, you would correct people who say that Obama is the nominee.

    broken record!!! (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by sarahfdavis on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:20:12 AM EST
    geeze, it's annoying enough that you're chattering but come up with something different. you're rocking back and forth and repeating "we must get behind McCain". No. We must finish the process and if Obama is the nominee, he must undo all of the trashing he and his supporters have done to half of the democratic party.

    i suppose i am "his supporters" (none / 0) (#20)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:23:45 AM EST
    i have not trashed her.  of course, as we've seen w/ some TL supporters, both side have their lot of people that have trashed the other candidate.  

    but the process is over, we know that.  i'm completely fine w/ hillary staying in if she goes positive and focuses on mccain.  we don't need anything that could be perceived as divisive. if she won't, then i think the party needs to stand together to renounce negative attacks.  obama has obviously switched towards mccain and has said he's fine w/ hillary staying in.  


    Perverse satisfaction (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:25:54 AM EST
    with this repetition and you know it.  You do it on purpose.  Corrupted sophistry works in the other blogs, but not here.  We get your style.

    me too (5.00 / 9) (#32)
    by sarahfdavis on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:28:18 AM EST
    i'm completely fine with Obama staying in as well.
    If he and his supporters stop with the hatred and outrageous disrespect of senator clinton. Not noble. racist. psycho girlfriend etc. but on second thought, never mind. keep up the gutter talk and attitude. you don't need half of the dem party...it's a NEW MOVEMENT! and i'm not needed. have a super unifying day!

    Just An Idea (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:37:06 AM EST
    Why don't you use you comments to deal with the topic of the thread? Tell us why and how Obama is going to win the western states. That would be productive and on topic instead of being counterproductive and moving the discussion off topic.

    Here's the thing (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    I have exclusively focused on Obama's map.

    Frankly. you are one who has tried to turn everyone of these discussions in to a a discussion of Hillary's map.


    Will is be enough to overcome the loss? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:27:23 AM EST
    If you can not win without Ohio, Florida, and Penna,  can those 2 states overcome this loss? I can compare numbers myself but I do not see his picking up any votes.

    BTD.... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:30:37 AM EST
    okay, let me get this straight...

    Oregon supposedly tells us something about Western states, which includes four states that are already "lean democrat" or "swing":  one "midwestern" state (Iowa), two states where the Hispanic population is changing the election dynamic (NV, NM), one state that is becoming increasingly "Californiated" (Colorado)... and finally one actual Western GOP stronghold -- Montana.

    Oregon might tell us about potential for winning in Washington and Northern California -- but New Mexico?  don't you think that's something of a stretch?


    A bit of a stretch (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:33:10 AM EST
    But I think there are certain similarities among western white voters especially.

    I think the voters will react differently (none / 0) (#85)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:29:49 PM EST
    Obama will need the Latin@ vote to win in NM... but if he goes after that, he risks alienating the "western" voters in the state, because Obama's appeal is that he's "different" from other Democrats, and the minute he starts "pandering" to ethnic minorities, he's just another Democrat.

    Glad you're discussing this (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:43:56 AM EST
    I need a lot of discussion to get my brain to understand, apparently.

    I am trying to picture how you throw away the big industrial states (white working class), FL, take the coastal big states (CA and NY), lose the Southwest, take the upper NW.....lose the mid-west......

    and win.

    I can't wait to see more articles on this as we move into reality.

    ala Jay Cost, whom I make myself read because he's so good at the analytical stuff.

    Anyone who can boil it down into "Demographics for Dummies" like me is going to need to be on national spots as an analyst!  :)


    i don't remember talking about hillary's map (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:20:27 AM EST
    I think she would do well in the general election too, but using a different map as you point out.  i was just saying that her map is less relevant at this point.

    WTF? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:22:44 AM EST
    your coment is there for me to see:

    "I agree the maps will be different for each but really, i think we need to focus on Obama's map given he's our nominee."

    Stop with the BS. I am sick of it.

    Serriously. You are fast becoming the most disruptice commenter on this site.

    You go off topic constantly.

    It so happens that my entire focus has been on Obama's map. But YOU always want to discuss Hillary, not me.

    Stop the BS NOW.  


    relax. (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:25:59 AM EST
    nowhere in my post was i trying to raise your temp.    i was speaking about jeralyn's (she is a part of this blog) recent map postings re: hillary.  i am sorry if my post angered you. not the intention.

    Each post at this site (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:32:05 AM EST
    is independent and the comment must be germane to THAT post. you just admitted you were commenting on a different post. do not do it again.

    Agree to Disagree (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:35:23 AM EST
    is suspended for the weekend. He has troll rated comments (his ratings have been erased) and posted more than 20 comments today alone and it's only 10:30 am here.

    thank you (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by sarahfdavis on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:43:32 AM EST
    it's like a 3 year old in the back seat screaming the same thing over and over again. irritating as hell.

    Here you go again... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:17:16 AM EST
    cannot help yourself.  

    BTD (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    Dukakis carried Oregon so I hardly think this argument helps Obama.

    We can win in the west, some of the states anyway, with a candidate that can appeal to hispanics. Otherwise, I don't expect us to do any better than Kerry there.

    remaking the map (none / 0) (#67)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:56:11 AM EST
    I too am a big fan of Tom Schaller's work.  The goopers did manage to pick the one candidate who makes the West tough.  McCain is very appealing to the Hispanic community because of the appearance of his public stand on immmigration.

    There are a number of places on the web with interaction electoral college maps


    All Obama has to do from 2004 if flip Ohio (which should be easy without that maroon Blackwell screwing up the elections) but he needs to hold on other places.

    Heh, (none / 0) (#79)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:14:59 PM EST
    Obama flipping Ohio is gonna be a piece of cake  :-)

    more like Ohio flipping off Obama... (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by kempis on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:06:40 PM EST
    There is no way on earth Obama will win Ohio. None. Zippo. And I'll be shocked if he wins PA.

    It's amazing....Obama's supporters and media really seem to have a serious blind spot concerning the only reality that's going to matter on election night: that electoral map.

    And that map is going to be Kerry's minus PA.

    I don't know why Obama has been doing a little better in the western states but the coastal West seems to me different. The Far West, though, was deeply red and slow to turn on Bush. I remember tracking his approval ratings, and the South and the West held on stubbornly to him, mainly because of the war. I just don't see Obama being "strong" enough to do as well in the West as people anticipate. I think McCain is going to win the South, the West, the border states....Obama will win Illinois.


    A question about Electoral Map Counting (none / 0) (#72)
    by Belswyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:01:32 PM EST
    I don't understand the electoral map counting that's going on. It seems to me that whether you like Obama or Hillary, both have two things over McCain:
    (1) They're against the Iraq War - McCain cannot possibly cast himself as soft on this. Obama has stronger credentials here.
    (2) In uncertain economic times, people tend to vote Democratic. Hillary has stronger credentials here.

    I don't see how either (1) or (2) hurt either Obama or Hillary, though, and both should prove crippling to McCain.

    It seems to me that McCain is polling as well as he  is right now because neither Hillary nor Obama has really been pushing against him. That will change, and probably quite soon.

    Why do people think that electoral map counting at this stage of the process is so important?

    Yeah it Counts this Time (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by cdalygo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:14:21 PM EST
    I say this not only as a hard-core Hillary supporter but also political junkie.

    In the past few elections, the primary elections were quick so candidates could skip campaigning in most states. However, this time voters in almost all states have met the candidates (not only through media but also in person). That means their opinions are pretty well set in advance of GE. (Frankly I saw that as a good thing, especially for Hillary since she fought past the media myths about her coldness.)

    Adding to the volatility is the DNC's now oft-stated comment that it's seeking to rebrand and rebuild. That's going to further effect voters by their demographics, which will play out in many states that matter. (In English, many of us are pissed off. :>)

    Plus never forget Florida and Michigan. Those voters' anger pales to the rest of us. (Until I consider how not counting their votes diluted my vote for Hillary in California. But I need to stay on topic.)


    McCain is position himself as NOT BUSH (none / 0) (#76)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:10:56 PM EST
    McCain's view on the war in Iraq is actually closer to the majority of Americans.  Yes a majority wants out now (so why are we still there with no plan for getting out?) But many think the problems came not because it was a bad idea but because Bush et al are incompetent.

    McCain's cred is this area is supported in the media by the apparent (again  a media invention)
    success of the surge.  


    Disagree That It Is A Given That McCain (none / 0) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:19:18 PM EST
    is polling well just because he hasn't been pushed by the Dem candidates. IIFC the DNC has run ads recently against McCain. Also, the Republicans have just started to run ads against Obama.

    On Iraq, we don't know what the situation will be on the ground there before the election and we don't know how effective the Republicans will be in painting the Dem candidate as weak on defense.

    The economy will have the largest effect on lower income workers and so far Obama has not been able to connect with non AAs in this demographic.

    So all we really have is recent polling data and trends as indicators to determine the likelihood of success in November.


    Obama has connected (none / 0) (#88)
    by 1jane on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:35:20 PM EST
    to working class voters very strongly in Oregon. The Democratic Latino caucus in my county supports Obama. I live in an orchard and vineyard and tourist county where the field laborers, construction workers, service unions are united to support Obama. The unfortunate myth that rural voters support Clinton is just that, a myth. Time to go read Bob Hubert's column in today's NYT and give up on the myth message.

    One State Does Not Make A Consensus n/t (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:53:58 PM EST
    No but... (none / 0) (#110)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:22:54 PM EST
    If we are looking at the primaries as a guide, Obama won the white votes in all the states West of the Mississippi (excluding OK and AR, which are really southern states), and he did especially well among poor white voter. This includes all of the primaries and caucuses. The states West of the Mississippi that Obama lost, he lost because of the Latin@ vote that went to Clinton. (funny how there were no calls then about how Clinton couldn't appeal to poor white working class though).

    So I think that Obama will do very well against McCain West of the Mississippi, but will have to fight hard for the Latin@ vote; NM may be at risk but I think CA, CO, OR, WA, IA, WS, MN, HI are all going to be favorable terrain for him once the campaign gets underway, and he may have an outside shot of flipping a couple of plains-states that may force McCain to play a little bit of defense out there.

    The NE is going to be very favorable terrain for Obama as well (as it has been trending heavily blue the last few years). Obama is going to have his biggest trouble in the border states and rust belt - I think TN is a goner, as well as probably OH. The deep south may ironically get better vote outcomes for him (although he still won't win), due to the probably massive black turnout. I think he's got a decent shot at VA due to NOVA (upper class white liberals dominate here) plus the black vote. NC he might have an outside shot at for similar reasons - the Raleigh-Durham area is somewhat similar to NOVA, plus a large black area.

    Interestingly, people complain that his white support dropped from VA to NC, but not if you exclude NOVA and Raleigh-Durham to get a like-for-like comparison; Obama gets blown out among whites in non-tech sector Southern cities, its just that NOVA is much larger than Durham, so in VA it counteracted this phenomenon to a greater degree.


    Yeah, except (none / 0) (#132)
    by Eleanor A on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:25:56 PM EST
    that excluding OK and AR, he only lost three states west of the Mississippi:  CA, NV, AZ, all of which have very high Latino populations, so your argument doesn't prove much.

    As far as the rest of your theories?  CO has gone Democratic in a Presidential once - once - in the last 40 years, for Bill Clinton in 1992.  Virginia elected Kaine and Webb, but in the recent past the state had two GOP Senators, a GOP governor, and a GOP-controlled legislature.  Virginia Dems are blue-collar types downstate; the vote you have to win there is not only NoVa and Richmond but a big stripe of the 9th near Bristol.  It also hasn't gone Dem on the Presidential level for 40+ years.

    Furthermore, you have to win ALL of your tossups - Missouri, Colorado, both Nevada and New Mexico, and Virginia - to win without OH, MI and FL.  Obama's going to have to depend nearly entirely on white, Asian and Latino voters if he's going to concede the entire South (which is home to nearly half the black voters in the nation).  

    Frankly, his shenanigans in Florida alone may well cost him the election.  You'd think someone facing an electoral map this difficult would have had the foresight not to pick an argument with voters in that particular state.


    Big Problem with the Western Argument (none / 0) (#84)
    by Bob Boardman on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:29:12 PM EST
    is that McCain's own strength is in the west.

    I'd give away Oregon for Florida, Ohio and Michigan.

    Obama is a disaster happening.

    The core elites of the Democratic party are going to make Karl Rove look like a genius once again.

    Serious challenges for McCain (none / 0) (#93)
    by 1jane on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    Former Republican stongholds have gone Democrat. Bend, Oregon in their precincts inside the city limits, have gone Dem for the first time in 40 years. McCain will be trounced in Oregon. Once we know the Democratic nominee all of McCains baggage will spill out. Couple his baggage with his mispeaks and stance on reproductive rights, his temper, his age, and a run against the activated youth vote and well..conventional wisdom regarding the race will be seriously challenged.

    a lot of the newly Dem districts (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by kempis on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:10:41 PM EST
    turned Dem in 06 thanks to the Blue Dogs--those moderate-to-conservative Democrats that will vote for McCain over Obama in 08.

    I wouldn't be so fast to write off MI (none / 0) (#112)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    MI is more similar to IL and WS in a lot of ways than it is to OH. The farther north you went in OH and IN, the more favorable the counties were for Obama, just fyi.

    You're right that probably OH and FL are out of reach for Obama unless the situation gets so unfavorable for McCain that they wouldn't matter anyway. The question is can he make it up by flipping states out West that Kerry couldn't get. Remember, Obama cleaned up among whites out West (particularly poor, "hard working" ones).


    As a former Iowan, I think many (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:46:19 PM EST
    in Iowa would be quite surprised to be lumped in a s part of the West.  Reminds me of those maps where everything West of the Hudson is squished together.

    I imagine... (none / 0) (#118)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:59:24 PM EST
    ...people still confuse Iowa with Idaho.  Especially those east of the Mississippi.

    Or, as a good friend who is a CA native (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:58:30 PM EST
    says, those states that start with vowels--so confusing.

    So the plan is... (none / 0) (#113)
    by tsteels2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:46:11 PM EST
    I hear much talk about Senator Obama's problem with "working-class white voters" and Senator Clinton's strength with them.  The stats don't lie.  So what's to be done?  My biggest problem with Senator Clinton's campaign is that they spotted Senator Obama 12 states.  If she would have split them with him, we're talking a different story regardless of the MI and FL situation.

    Even with MI and FL in play, Senator Clinton still comes up short a little (according to some of the stats out there).  So the SDs should stop the "train wreck" (as been said by a few commenters in various threads) that is Senator Obama right?

    I'm just trying to get my head around on what's the end game.  Personally I'd take Clinton or Obama to McCain anyday and five times in Vegas.  I'd take them with all of the virtues and vices instead of McCain.


    In fact, the statistics do lie (none / 0) (#114)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:57:17 PM EST
    Obama only lost the apparently sacrosanct lower income white vote in the rust belt and the deep south. Out West, he won that vote. In the NE, they were both competitive.

    And Clinton didn't really spot Obama 12 states - this whole race has been all about demographics; he won states that are:

    1. less than 10% black (except OK)
    2. states that are more than 30% black
    3. not states close to New York
    4. not states with more than 10% latin@ population

    This describes almost all of the America West of the Mississippi.

    So his big problem states are going to be OH and PA. FL is probably gone. He's got really opportunities to pick up about 20-25 EVs out West relative to Kerry and possibly VA.


    You are high (none / 0) (#115)
    by dissenter on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:44:16 PM EST
    If you think Barack Obama is going to win CO. Seriously dude. It ain't gonna happen. He is no western dem and you can't win CO by only winning Boulder, Denver and Aspen.

    You need a reality check. Does Ken Salazar and Gov Ritter even remotely resemble BO? It is laughable.


    Obama beats McCain (none / 0) (#117)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:53:40 PM EST
    in all of the latest CO polls. But apparently this makes me "high" for pointing this out.

    Obama has two very problematic demographics heading into the general:

    1. old people
    2. whites when a state is racially polarized

    Colorado fits neither of those two.

    Obama did the best out West in the primaries, and this is the area of the country he consistently does the best in h2h polling against McCain. But apparently you know better than I do that he is no "Western dem"


    Ah ya (none / 0) (#124)
    by dissenter on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:26:07 PM EST
    So What? Kerry was leading Bush in the Spring too. He lost by at least five points. Again, BO is no western dem. Our democrats don't raise taxes, touch guns or engage in divisive racial politics.

    And there are very few AA here. On the other hand, there are a lot of Latinos, military, defense contractors, etc. You don't know the state.

    I'm highly educated and part of the so called creative class. I will vote for McCain.


    And (none / 0) (#125)
    by dissenter on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:27:05 PM EST
    Obama lost NV and NM. You are a real western expert.

    He lost them due to the Latino vote (none / 0) (#129)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:59:38 PM EST
    He won the white vote (the demographic he's supposedly  having trouble winning)

    Obama wins the white vote (none / 0) (#130)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:02:15 PM EST
    West of the Mississippi handily against Clinton. Obama is up on McCain in CO, Kerry was never up on Bush in any sustained polling in CO in 2004 (I was tracking this closely).

    And congrats on voting McCain. Hope you like 100 years in Iraq (yes, your vote will be contributing to the death of US soldiers in Iraq), and the revocation of Roe v. Wade.


    Um, wrong (none / 0) (#133)
    by Eleanor A on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:43:30 PM EST
    Let's use Kansas for the sake of example.  About 30,000 people participated in their caucuses February 15, which is all well and good - until you consider the fact that 2.6 million people live in the state, 1.5 million or so are registered to vote and 440,000 of them are registered Democrats.  So your guy was picked by about 2% of the registered voters, and about 10% of registered Democrats...sort of hard to make the case that Obama would even win a primary there, much less come anywhere close in a general election.  

    Colorado, a similar story:  120,000 people or so participated in the Dem caucus, a tiny fraction of registered Democrats and an even smaller fraction of registered voters.  I'd posit it's nearly impossible to predict how the state would vote in a general election given such a small sample size (and again, even whether Obama would have won in a primary election there.)


    Kansas Feb. 5, sorry for typo n/t (none / 0) (#134)
    by Eleanor A on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:44:10 PM EST
    Actually... (none / 0) (#120)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:14:58 PM EST
    ...yes.  They're all basically centerists.  And, how exactly do you think Bill Ritter won?  It wasn't the Springs or the Western Slope that put him in office.

    He won caucuses, not primaries (none / 0) (#131)
    by Eleanor A on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:04:59 PM EST
    in most of the categories, you list, for the most part.  Last I checked, the Presidency will not be decided by caucus.  

    Montana (none / 0) (#128)
    by eleanora on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:48:28 PM EST
    I seriously doubt Senator Obama could take my state, not against McCain. He'll probably take the primary against Clinton, because the Libertarians think he's one of them, but McCain is a different story.

    McCain's ads will play up his military service and long experience, the Rs will hit hard on Obama's shaky economic strategy, the NRA will run ads on his gun control stance, and the 527s will question Obama's patriotism in horrible ways--it'll probably cost them all about $150,000 total in ads for the entire state for the entire season. Each one of those hits the major targets you've got to have here. As long as McCain picks a VP who can talk farm policy and the economy, he's good to go.

    And if any disrespectful mention is made about Senator McCain's age by the Obama campaign, he could easily beat Bush's 2004 numbers. Montanans like John McCain's maverick persona, even most Dems, and we respect older people, that's not going to fly.

    A good solid economic policy in a campaign that shows respect for McCain could keep it close, but even then I think MT will vote R for Prez, just to keep things balanced. Schweitzer will try hard for the Dem nominee, but people will smile at him and split their tickets without hesitation.

    Electability (none / 0) (#141)
    by bren on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:19:55 AM EST
    The DNC knows very well Obama cannot win in November.  I am wondering if they simply don't care if he wins or not.  As long as the dems keep control of congress and pick up a few more senate seats, people like Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd and John Kerry still get to act like big wigs within the party.  The fact that Obama as the so-called "presumed nominee" is still losing by huge margins in swing states in only a primary is a huge warning sign.  The media and DNC want people to believe it's no big deal, but Obama has big problems with several important voting blocks and the black vote, higher income left liberal vote will never be enough to push him over the top in November. Many moderate dems would have no problem voting McCain.   DNC doesn't want to admit, Hillary can win, Obama cannot.