home

What Is a Realistic Electoral Map For November?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:23:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

One good thing has happened in this Democratic primary process, the silly proclamation of 60% wins and 40 state sweeps is over. Maybe in the future Dems can dream of such things. But not in this Presidential election. Now everyone has seen all the state by state polling and I won't dwell on it. But following in Jeralyn's footsteps, I will discuss what I believe are realistic electoral maps for the likely nominee, Barack Obama and for Hillary Clinton. I also will discuss what this map might mean in terms of a VP choice. More . . .

The best place to start is John Kerry's 2004 map. Kerry won 252 electoral votes. He carried 19 states and DC. the states were CA, OR, WA, MN, WI, MI, PA, MD, NJ, NY, CT, MA, RI, VT, NH and ME. Of those, my own view is that both Obama and Clinton are likely to win those states.

Of states that were were closely contested and won by Kerry, Obama is a surer bet in WI (Kerry won it by 12,000 votes), MN (Kerry won by 3 points), OR (Kerry won by 4 points) and WA ( Kerry won by 7 points). That's 38 electoral votes.

Clinton is a surer bet in the following close Kerry states: PA. That is 21 electoral votes.

On the pickup opportunities, Obama is a lock in IA, and has a great chance in CO, NM and NV. That is 26 electoral votes. Clinton can win in Iowa and New Mexico but I do not think she can win in Colorado and Nevada. So Clinton can add 11 electoral votes from these states.

In other pickup opportunities, Clinton is clearly superior to Obama and would almost certainly win Ohio and Arkansas. That is 26 electoral votes. Obama CAN win Ohio but Clinton WOULD win Ohio. Obama can not win Arkansas.

Clinton CAN win Florida and West Virginia. Obama can not win either.

I do not believe, other than perhaps Montana, any other state is really in play.

So what is Obama's best map? CA, OR, WA, MN, WI, MI, PA, MD, NJ, NY, CT, MA, RI, VT, NH, ME, the Kerry states, PLUS CO, NM, NV, IA, MO and OH. That is Kerry's 252 PLUS new electoral votes for a total of 309 electoral votes. In this scenario, Obama can win without carrying Ohio or MO, but he needs to win nearly all of the states he is putting in play to do this.

Clinton's best electoral map, now not very relevant, includes Kerry's 252 electoral votes, CA, DC, OR, WA, MN, WI, MI, PA, MD, NJ, NY, CT, MA, RI, VT, NH and ME PLUS OH, FL, AR, MO and WV, 69 electoral votes, for a total of 321 electoral votes.

In terms of VP choices based solely on electoral math, If Ohio gov. Strickland can deliver Ohio to Obama, then he should pick him. In addition, Strickland was a strong Clinton supporter and this a unifying choice. The question is can Strickland really deliver Ohio? I have no idea. Polling needs to be done in Ohio to determine that.

Interestingly, my own view is that Hillary Clinton can deliver Arkansas to Obama as a running mate.

In terms of other VP potentials, none of them can deliver a state imo. Sebelius can not deliver Kansas. McCaskill cannot deliver MO. Napolitano ca not deliver Arizona. I see no logic whatsoever to choosing them. They add nothing to Obama's chances.

If Obama is looking at improving his electoral chances on a state by state basis, I think there are two candidates - Clinton and Strickland. Unless some pipe dream Virginia, then Webb is a candidate.

Anyway, that is my based on my thoughts - not data - ramblings on this subject.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed.

< Missouri GOP's Voter Suppression Plan | How A Candidate-Based "Movement" Can Be Harmful >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What Is a Realistic Electoral Map For November? | 216 comments (216 topical)
    My view of the electoral map (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:33:14 PM EST
    is here.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:36:28 PM EST
    Now referenced in the first graf of my post.

    [ Parent ]
    And your list of Kerry states is wrong (none / 0) (#197)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:05:29 PM EST
    You say there are 19 states, but you only list 16. At a glance I can see that IL is missing.

    [ Parent ]
    Back (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by gaf on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:33:48 PM EST
    After the Indiana/NC primaries, I sort of lost interest in political stuff & didn't read or post on the blogs much. But somehow, my enthusiasm returned today on reading about Jim Cooper & Barack Obama. I x-posted a diary on dkos & mydd.

    BTD, do you still think HRC has even a tiny chance to be the nominee? Will a WV blowout make any difference?

    gaf (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:22:59 PM EST
    I just read your post at mydd.

    Very good.  Obama's lack of a government run option and Hillary's inclusion of such an option makes Obama the choice of the insurance industry as indicated by his industry take in contributions and Chris Dodd's (D-Insurance Industry) early endorsement.

    There are factors overlooked in any assessment of Obama's electoral chances.  The last I saw, Obama continues to slide in California.  I'm not saying he would be in any real danger of losing California but no Democrat has a chance without getting those 55 EVs.  The way it looks now Obama would have to spend some real money there for insurance.  Democrats haven't had to spend money there in a long while. Money would also be required in Massachusetts a state that's been a free ride for Democrats since 1988.

    That takes money away from the traditional battleground states.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:37:15 PM EST
    plans to compete in CA if Obama is the nominee. I can understand that it would flip with Obama since he has pretty severe demographic problems.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? Obama is sliding in CA? (none / 0) (#188)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:01:11 PM EST
    By how much and with whom?

    [ Parent ]
    A tiny chance (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:38:31 PM EST
    Sure.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's road to victory -- (none / 0) (#200)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:06:02 PM EST
    DKos -
    http://tinyurl.com/3wt7je

    What do you think of this analysis?

    [ Parent ]

    Talking heads clearly don't believe this (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ajain on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:33:53 PM EST
    They keep talking about how some states in South, with huge AA populations could change the dynamics. I heard that Kansas could be in play - which amused me to no extent.

    lol (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:52:02 PM EST
    Teh Woodwork theory.

    Actually the Aa vote in the south is almost certainly going to be a forlorn hope.  

    I don't know how it turns into points.  So it also distorts the meaing of any national polling Obama gets.   Half the AA vote is in the south and most of it will be nullified by political boundaries.

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:53:59 PM EST
    And in the northern states where it matters, AA turnout already rocks in Presidential years.

    Obama will likely lift rural southern black turnout, and that might benefit Dems in, say, the Georgia State Senate/House, but there will be a negligible effect on the Electoral College.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:21:21 PM EST
    won't help down here. His campaign in the primary did great damage to the party.

    [ Parent ]
    Frankly, the damage was done (none / 0) (#115)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:25:50 PM EST
    by 2002 in Georgia.

    I think it's clear why.

    [ Parent ]

    What did they do? n/t (none / 0) (#193)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:02:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes ajain (none / 0) (#117)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:26:36 PM EST
    the pundit class continues to demonstrate that a job requirement is running off at the mouth without examining factual information.

    [ Parent ]
    Why don't we flood them with some data? (none / 0) (#165)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:46:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This just in (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:34:57 PM EST
    Sorry BTD, I know this isn't OT, except as it pertains to SD...

    South Dakota for Hillary Announces Endorsement of 41 Former State Legislators and Constitutional Officers

    Officials with over 330 years of combined public service to the state of South Dakota endorse Hillary

    The Clinton campaign today announced the endorsement of 41 former South Dakota state legislators and constitutional officers. These officials, with over 330 years of combined experience in public service to the state of South Dakota, endorsed Hillary because of her readiness to serve on day one and her plans to jumpstart the economy and help consumers struggling with rising gas prices.

    And the plot thickens.  Are we going to start seeing more endorsements of on-the-ground troops to keep this competitive?

    (Let me know if I should re-post this somewhere else, delete if so)

    Would Love To See Daschle Not Be Able (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:10:25 PM EST
    to deliver SD to obama.  He has been so smug and off-putting, trying to make himself relevant after losing his seat in the Senate, not to mention the lousy job he did as majority leader.

    Back to the electoral map...I don't think obama's chances would be that good in CO, NM or NV....too many hispanics and they sure as hell aren't going to vote for him....just my opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, I'd link (none / 0) (#11)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:36:54 PM EST
    but no link yet.  I got the announcement via email.  There's a list of said legislators attached, but it's pretty long, so won't post here unless by request.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD -- Does this mean you are now supporting (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:42:18 PM EST
    Clinton based on her superior electability? ; )

    Does it matter? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:46:10 PM EST
    Obama is going to be our nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    The super delegates.... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:48:34 PM EST
    ...have been waiting with baited breath for your announcement; )  Come on, throw us a bone!

    [ Parent ]
    is Obama a sure loser? (none / 0) (#36)
    by dem08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:47:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:50:06 PM EST
    he is a likely winner.

    [ Parent ]
    ....of the primary (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:23:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Of both . . . (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:44:04 PM EST
    the political climate favors whoever the nominee is.  We have a 60-40 generic advantage and are turning out in unprecedented numbers.  

    [ Parent ]
    BTD... (none / 0) (#123)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    ...over at Lawyers, Guns and Money:

    "The funny thing is I do not much like either candidate."

    [ Parent ]

    I don't (none / 0) (#195)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:04:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Especially (none / 0) (#145)
    by buhdydharma on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:38:15 PM EST
    When the blogosphere...which influences the MSM...turns its sights on what a poor candidate McSame is.

    And stops attacking each other and inflaming inter-party partisanship and finds ways to heal its wounds and we all unite to defeat the Repubs. The folks who have brought us recession and torture, and Iraq, ad the loss of our civil liberties.

    Instead of voting for four more years of the same horrors and worse under McCain.*

    What will the polls say when it is a clear choice between a Dem and McCain, Dem Policies vs Repub policies, instead of the muddied waters we have bee dealing with?

    *Not to metion the SCOTUS

    [ Parent ]

    Tell those Barack supporters (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:43:46 PM EST
    to quit posting as tag lines "We would rather lose with Obama than win with Hillary."

    THAT'S the kind of thing that makes me super anti-Obama.

    They deserve the govt they get for being so malicious.  I was quite open to voting for Mr. Obama at one time. But not anymore.

    [ Parent ]

    Ok I will! (none / 0) (#183)
    by buhdydharma on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    But they don't listen to me any more than Clinton supporters do!

    Believe me, I've tried!

    :)

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (none / 0) (#162)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:45:07 PM EST
    When the blogosphere...which influences the MSM


    [ Parent ]
    yup! (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by buhdydharma on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:02:30 PM EST
    How much influence?

    That depends on how cohesive (and coherent) the message is.

    The MSM reads the blogs. Therefore we have influence.

    [ Parent ]

    They must be seeing a very tattered (none / 0) (#199)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:05:57 PM EST
    and torn Dem. base then.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama much less positive in these maps (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:40:00 PM EST
    Electoral Vote has maps for Clinton/McCain and Obama/McCain that take in a lot of previous election data, demographics and current polls.  They update the maps every day with the new data.

     Clinton wins the Presidency every day for months now over Obama and McCain.  McCain always wins over Obama so far. They also list the states won and lost with each.

    Electoral Vote Maps

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, (none / 0) (#166)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    I am a regular visitor to that site.  It is only since the run up to PA that Obama began to trail on their maps.  

    The methodology there is odd and while the site is interesting, it is unreliable.  

    [ Parent ]

    I have pride in my vote (none / 0) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    It Matters.

    [ Parent ]
    Are the DLC listening? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by stevenb on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:43:15 PM EST
    What I find most interesting is how many independent bloggers such as BTD laying out math/structures/educated guesses on the electoral outcome of the GE, and how many side with Clinton, or at least argue (quite well IMHO) that a Unity Ticket is a sure-fire bet for the Dems. to get the Presidency.

    What I find next most interesting is how our elected officials, the Dem. leadership and all the pundits seem COMPLETELY oblivious to these numbers and thoughts.  Why, I ask?  

    Is the DLC afraid to acknowledge that the favored Obama is not exactly the presumptive GE winner they thought he could/would be?

    And, is it not obvious that a Unity Ticket would erase any so-called "divide" and create the largest, most efficient Democratic Party we've seen in decades?!?

    --------------------------------
    http://questionbarackobama.blogspot.com

    obama expands the map (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by Turkana on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:43:51 PM EST
    he can win seven states none of us even knew existed!

    a joke- a very small joke- i'm joking!

    And would you believe some of his (5.00 / 12) (#51)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    supporters actually believe it?? I had one shriek in my face the other day. I was shopping with a friend and we were discussing the campaign, including the sexism and the 57 state thing. A girl was shopping and overheard us laughing about the 57 state bit. She came up to us and shrieked, yes shrieked, in our faces that "Obama WILL win all 57 states!!!! You are just too blind to see it!!!" Then she said we must be racists. Which was interesting because the friend I was shopping with was black, and the girl was white. They really are blind..LOL And they really need to work on their geography.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:58:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    the general election (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:41:44 PM EST
    is going to be a great show.
    however it goes.

    [ Parent ]
    this is hard to credit. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:30:41 PM EST
    everyone knows that there are only 48 states.

    [ Parent ]
    If he said it that's credit (none / 0) (#211)
    by Ellie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:25:20 PM EST
    I was at a big family event and he's still Teh New Coolness (in a water cooler topic way) but losing his glow for the hipsters at the front of the bandwagon. It's creepy.

    At least I didn't have to do actual combat like over Bush / war stuff. Bad blood there and wouldn't you know it, the people who shook off the koolaid on that eventually were huffing around the most indignant.

    [ Parent ]

    Turkana, (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MarkL on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:58:32 PM EST
    nice try with your "healing" entries at TLC.
    At least you are credible---I can't stand the kissy-kissy posts from Obama supporters now. I DO have a memory, thank you!

    [ Parent ]
    thanks (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Turkana on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:26:43 PM EST
    i'm trying. no matter which was nominated (no which will be), this is going to be a much tougher race than people realize. and yes- the kissy kissy stuff, after all the knives in the back, is a bit hard to take. fortunately, we're not voting for the candidates' internet supporters...

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:33:43 PM EST
    the internet supporters are a problem that Obama has failed to deal with. He could chastise bloggers about judges but not about his obnoxious supporters?

    Truthfully, I think it's too late. Obama and his supporters just keep making it worse for 1/2 of the party. Hopefully, we can regroup for 2012.

    [ Parent ]

    2012 will be too late (none / 0) (#156)
    by Turkana on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:43:23 PM EST
    there's still time, but this party has to come together, this year!

    [ Parent ]
    Tell Chris Bowers that. (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:54:51 PM EST
    He and many of his ilk do not think there is any reason to care one whit about HRC's supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    madamab, (none / 0) (#190)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:01:52 PM EST
    I read your excelet blog post about Bowers this morning.  My husband was furious when I told him the highlights.

    Creative class?  More like a bunch of irresponsible, naive little kids.  

    [ Parent ]

    Darn keyboard! (none / 0) (#194)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:03:34 PM EST
    excellent

    [ Parent ]
    Jesse Jackson agrees: (none / 0) (#181)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:56:37 PM EST
    Chicago Sun-Times

    [ Parent ]
    This Jesse Jackson? (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:15:55 PM EST
    From Eric Boehlert:

    And where were the catcalls in 1988 for Jesse Jackson to ditch his quixotic run before all the primary votes had been tallied? He finished with 1,200 delegates, nearly 1,400 behind Michael Dukakis, yet soldiered on all the way to the convention without having a prayer of winning the nomination. There were few if any media drum sections trying to pound him out of the race.

    Hush.

    [ Parent ]

    This was interesting: (none / 0) (#214)
    by rooge04 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:43:10 PM EST
    "I don't want to be presumptuous," Jackson said. "I'd just say that the math says she should stop. But her mission says she shouldn't. ... I don't know whether she is driving on because of some mystery, you know, hoping against hope that something other than popular votes and delegates will derail Barack."

    The math didn't tell HIM to stop when he took it all the way to the convention.

    [ Parent ]

    We've been (none / 0) (#204)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:10:11 PM EST
    told repeatedly that they don't want us. Obama's plan to "declare victory" on May 21st or whatever his plan is will destroy the party. He should wait until all the voting is done and MI and FL are seated. Otherwise he will be seen as an illegitimate choice for 1/2 of the party. Hillary's supporters will bolt for either McCain or won't show up.

    [ Parent ]
    aren't you making a convincing (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by dem08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:45:18 PM EST
    argument that Hillary is the stronger candidate?

    What if...Obama loses the white vote by the same percentage to McCain as he does to Hillary?

    With the Big State Electoral Vote losses assured, (Florida, Texas), with the South Already solidly McCain's, and necessary Democratic states like Pennsylvania, Michigan long shots for Obama, that leaves a lot of western states Obama has to carry, with or without Hillary.

    The best thing that could happen is Barr siphoning off GOP votes from people who (mistakenly) assume McCain is a "moderate".

    If I were a Hillary supporter, which I am not, I would figure that the Super Delegates will have a tough time endorsing Obama with his astronomically high negatives among the majority of Democratic voters.

    It's not the white vote (5.00 / 8) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:47:05 PM EST
    It's the "smart vote pragmatists who want solutions and can see through Obama's BS" vote.


    [ Parent ]
    is that to imply (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    that those whites voting for Obama are not smart pragmatists and cannot see through BS? You are right, those Obama supporters are a mean and nasty lot.

    [ Parent ]
    It's to imply (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    That Obama supporters value different things.

    Again.  If you don't like hyperbole and divisive language, don't focus only on the lonely loser  Clinton supporter.  

    Really.  Isn't it fair to say that Obama crafted his message to attract a certain kind of voter.  And that Clinton crafted her message to attract a certain kind of voter.

    And wouldn't I be far LESS cynical than anyone else alive if I proceded from the standpoint that those messages and those different kinds of voters are, in the best sense of the word, color blind?

    [ Parent ]

    Crafting (3.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:12:04 PM EST
    How they craft their message is one thing, how you craft is miserable. Her "voters" are no more smart, no more pragmatic than Obama's. If you care to make an argument surrounding the demographics I would love to hear it as I think that is fair and the point of these conversations. You sir, continually invect insidious vomit into the discussion. If the profile of the smart and pragmatic is that of a caustic rhetorician, than she can have em.

    [ Parent ]
    Again (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:15:46 PM EST
    If you're worried about vomit, there's better places for you to be hanging out ridding the world of that vomit.

    Just in my opinion.

    Trust me.  I'm still a mere novice.  In fact, I think I'm getting rusty.  I think I'll go hang out on an Obama blog and refresh my memory on how it's done.

    [ Parent ]

    Leave or else (2.33 / 3) (#113)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:24:06 PM EST
    lol. See I don't have to like you or your posts not do I have to leave or find another place to blog. Your passive agressive histrionic posts should be called out and I have no issue in doing it. Do you not have the fortitude to outright call his supporters stupid, or is it that you really think you are that clever? You are not clever.

    [ Parent ]
    I never said (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:27:46 PM EST
    Leave or else.

    I said don't just focus on the vomit coming from one side.

    Cause when all one focusses on is the vomit coming from one side, then someone else is free to conclude that vomit is not the primary concern.


    [ Parent ]

    Gosh (none / 0) (#101)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:19:37 PM EST
    Since Edgar08 is undoubtedly the only person on the planet who dares to believe that his candidate is the smarter choice, perhaps you could just avoid his posts.

    [ Parent ]
    because it is (none / 0) (#143)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:37:22 PM EST
    insulting and divisive. Let's have a fair fight and hold ourselves to the same standards we are holding them to. There is a lot of talk about both sides using dirty tricks and a lot of "moral outrage" on both sides. Yet, here we are in the midst of that moral outrage, posting the very same thing. Maybe the candidates are right when they act this way, after all it seems that "blog" forums are full of that, and stupid is as stupid does.

    [ Parent ]
    I consider myself (none / 0) (#171)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    a LOT smarter than Obama's voters.  I quizzed 5 of them this weekend and NONE of them knew that there are FIFTY states in the union.

    I am 40.  When I was in the 3rd grade I could name every state and its capital (still can).  IF BHO voters believe there are more than 50 states they can't be all that well-informed.

    I think there should be some kind of quiz to vote.  We have people voting who don't know how many states there are in the union.  THAT should be at the minimum, a pre-requisite.

    But then again, that would knock out Barack Obama.  Bush went to Yale.  Obama went to Harvard.  I will gladly take my UT public education over theirs ANY good old day of the week.

    [ Parent ]

    I am just giving my views (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:48:02 PM EST
    Not making an argument. I think arguments now are irrelevant. Obama is going to be the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    helloooo Pres. McCain! (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:28:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama's map? - He's unvetted by Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by dwmorris on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:53:12 PM EST
    The question is ... what will the map realistically look like in a few months after the Republican attack machine has made a more concerted effort to "define" Barrack and Michelle?  Will it make this type of analysis seem hopelessly optimistic?
    That "Best" map includes several states (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    that Obama simply will not win.

    OH and PA cannot realistically be put into Obama's column even now. He will lose without them. Sorry.

    That's just for starters. McCain will be competitive in CA, MA and NY. CA because of the Latino vote, MA because of Deval Patrick fatigue (they elect a lot of Republicans there too), and NY because of deep red pockets hidden in the blue. A lot of Obama's finances and time will be spent trying to win those states, which HRC will win in a walk.

    Then there's IA. No chance whatsoever that Obama wins it in the fall. Caucus victories do not a primary victory make.

    Of course WV and KY are not even remotely in play for Obama.

    Are we worried yet?

    [ Parent ]

    JFK lost Ohio (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:19:19 PM EST
    as did every other Dem candidate since (except LBJ in 1964, and of course, Bill Clinton TWICE).

    If ANYONE thinks that Obama can win Ohio, I would very much like to have whatever it is that you are taking that makes you live outside of the political reality of presidential politics.

     

    [ Parent ]

    I agree -- and it's going to erode further ... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by dwmorris on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:19:21 PM EST
    as McCain poaches disaffected women, environmentalists, rural whites, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    While we share... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:37:03 PM EST
    ...a common dislike of McSame, madamab, I disagree with your assessment of Iowa.  The D's will carry the Hawkeye state this November.

    [ Parent ]
    No problem... (none / 0) (#174)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    why do you think that, though? I just don't see Obama's appeal there.

    Don't you think Wright kills it for him?

    Would like to know from a Hawkeye perspective. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Iowans... (none / 0) (#189)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:01:17 PM EST
    ...aren't all ignorant dirt farmers.  They can see the bull-droppings for what they are.  The Wright thing falls into that category.

    First and foremost, the past 8 years have taken a heavy toll on the state and people know who/what the cause of that is.  They're smart enough to understand that McSame represent a continuation of the policies that have hurt them.  

    [ Parent ]

    I'd be willing to bet (none / 0) (#196)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:04:20 PM EST
    that no Iowan is an "ignorant dirt farmer" as you so eloquently put it -- and I don't remember anyone here describing them as such.

    [ Parent ]
    MA (5.00 / 9) (#48)
    by neilario on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:54:06 PM EST
    I also think the assumptions being made about MA being blue no matter what really disregard the special of case the massive disappointment we all have over BO version 1.0 [ deval patrick] - i voted for him and danced a happy tune when he won. and i regret it. he has been nothing that his false rhetoric indicated. and since so many of his branding aspects were recycled for BO we are more savvy about the false promise than many.

    This is the reason mccain is tied with BO in polling here. MA is in play if god forbid he is the nom.... so pull those EV right out of his lineup. Really - that is something that is really true. deval backlash is strong here.

    oh, and for most supporters on both sides this has been all about heart not head... intellectual notions however sound aren't so meaning ful - for ex... strickland as VP would provide some healing for HRC supporters. NOPE.  it is about BOs treatment of hrc and him that caused the fracture - so there is no intellectual compromise to heal an emotional wound. IMHO  

    Then we're screwed (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:56:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Right (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:23:50 PM EST
    I have a very good friend, pretty darn liberal at that, who lives in Stoughton, Mass.

    She and her husband did NOT vote for BHO because of the Patrick similarities.  I asked her about her circle of friends and her church, and they all feel pretty much the same way.  She went so far as to say that she and her husband would probably just sit out the election if BHO is the nom.  

    They aren't too thrilled with HRC, but admit that she could bring some real experience to the table, that experience being herself AND Bill Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    MA (none / 0) (#69)
    by CST on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    I have already written a number of posts on this subject, but here goes again...

    Deval Patrick, while viewed unfavorably here in MA has actually done a pretty good job as governer.  True, he hasn't been able to fulfill all of his campaign promises, but who has??  On a more specific not, MA currently has the best economy in the nation, we have actually experienced some economic growth in a national recession, and we have very low unemployment.  Additionaly, due the re-investment in BYCC by the governer, the murder rate in Boston dropped significantly over the summer.  Now, it is true, Deval has made some mistakes (see Casino plan), but he has done some very good things for the state as well.  He increased teacher pay, his economic stimulus appears to be working, and violence is down.

    Also, Deval Patrick is not Barack Obama.  They are two different people.  Having similar campaign themes/ advisors doesn't mean they are the same person or that they will govern similarly.

    Finally, while I think Deval does hurt Obama's chances here somewhat, I definitely do not see us going Red - just an opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    McAcin softens up the polling in New England (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    NH and Conn have to be considered vulnerable.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Obama's big weakness (none / 0) (#94)
    by dk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:17:50 PM EST
    in New England is the religiosity in his campaign message.  New England is probably the least religious part of the country, and even those who are religious tend to downplay it publicly (i.e. they consider religion a private matter).

    Wearing his religion on his sleeve may help Obama in some parts of the country, I suppose, but it's going to hurt him in New England.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't have a source or link at hand, but (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by wurman on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:32:25 PM EST
    The 7 far West states, especially the PacN'west, are the least religous by church membership, attendance & self-identification.

    And the difference is statistically large.  I'll look for it.

    [ Parent ]

    Here it is, from Feb 25, 08 (none / 0) (#144)
    by wurman on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:37:43 PM EST
    Link

    [ Parent ]
    Where's the part about (none / 0) (#153)
    by dk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:42:36 PM EST
    the Pac Northwest being the least religious region?  (I don't disbelieve you, I just don't see it anywhere).

    [ Parent ]
    The Pew Report (none / 0) (#198)
    by wurman on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:05:44 PM EST
    shows 19% in the Northeastern states & 22% in the West, but they use all 14 Western States.

    USA Today wrote:

    Geographical distribution of faith groups:
    Over 40% of adults in many Northeastern states identify with the Roman Catholic Church: Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Vermont. Baptists number over 40% in Southern states such as Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. Those who identify with "no religion" are in the majority in some Northwestern states, including Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming.

    USA Today has a very informative graphic of religious affiliation across the U.S. See: map

    Generally, though, it seems likely that religious affiliation will be a key factor for Sen. McCain to run against Sen. Obama, with 527s pounding on the Rev. Wright material at great length.


    [ Parent ]

    Religiosness.. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by CST on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:39:19 PM EST
    We are pretty religious, mainly Catholic here in MA.  For example, whenever I tell people what neighborhood I live in their #1 question is "which parish?"  However, I do think we tend to keep religion and politics seperate.  And in some ways church is more about community than religion.  I know a lot of athiest Catholics, and athiest Jews, etc...

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with that characterization. (none / 0) (#164)
    by dk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:46:25 PM EST
    But that's why I think Obama could be in trouble in MA, particularly if he keeps up with the religous-laden speeches, and the sermon-like delivery of his speeches.  I just don't think that style plays well here.  It might excite college students, but that would be about it.

    [ Parent ]
    Both Dems will be fine in MA (none / 0) (#186)
    by thomphool on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:59:58 PM EST
    MA is by far the hardest state in the country to RDD poll.  Without getting into too much specifics, the distribution patterns of the 617, 781, and 978 area codes have to be aggressively controlled and many national polling firms do a terrible job of doing this, usually to the determent of Dems in the state.  While Patrick will hurt him here, for GOP candidates to win in the state, they have to perform exceedingly well in the North Shore Bedroom Communities and run up some margins in the 9th and 10th Congressional districts.  While Obama lost all those areas in the primary, it wasn't by as wide of margins as we saw in other Clinton strongholds, and McCain didn't really outperform in any of these areas.  Without looking extensively into the polls that have it as a toss up w/ Obama, my gut from past experience here is that it's not nearly as close as polls indicate.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure that accounts (none / 0) (#96)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:18:56 PM EST
    for a good portion of his problem with Jews. (He lost them 2:1 in PA).

    [ Parent ]
    Do you have an idea (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:40:52 PM EST
    how angry Senator Kennedy has made Hillary's supporters?  Getting him out of office might be near impossible until he decides to leave, but sticking a finger in his eye by giving Massachusetts to McCain is not.  Obama has been adept as using sexism in his campaign, but he's missed this one - "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned".

    [ Parent ]
    He's shifted to the Rockies. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:57:39 PM EST
    It's an unknown unknown BTD.  The border south is dead to us and the foundry states are either a loss or us hanging on for dear life.

    What about Ed (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by FrankinTexas on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:57:50 PM EST
    I think Rendall would be a good choice for Obama.  He seems better suited to play the attack dog role,

    If PA is as in play (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    as I think it is, he would indeed be a good choice.

    [ Parent ]
    He might overshadow Obama (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by BarnBabe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:24:39 PM EST
    Rendell is like Hillary. He can talk any subject and has facts to support what he says.

    [ Parent ]
    I want the Obama-Monobrow ticket (none / 0) (#61)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:01:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I wonder how he would play outside of (none / 0) (#146)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:38:45 PM EST
    the NE and Mid-Atlantic.  He would probably lock up NJ and PA though, and even help in OH.  An intriguing idea.

    [ Parent ]
    Rendell... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    ... if the Obama people don't dislike him too much, would be a good peacemaking choice, since he's very squarely in the Clinton camp. He's also got that blue-collar appeal that Obama could use some help with, and would shore up Obama with Jewish voters. And obviously, PA shapes up to be the swing state of all swing states.

    [ Parent ]
    I love these sorts of predictions (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by katiebird on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    I do it all the time.  For example I've proven that if I could go 3 years without an emergency, I could save some-huge-amount of money.

    Well, emergencies always happen.  And they're never the one you plan for.

    I don't think Obama can keep it together through the summer.  I think McCain will lose his temper and all-heck will break loose.

    Still it's interesting to see The Math 2.0

    You really should think about a five year plan; ) (none / 0) (#175)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:54:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    MA. is a problem for Obama. (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by vicsan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:02:48 PM EST
    The last poll I saw showing a Clinton/McCain match-up in MA., Hillary won handily. When we see Obama/McCain match-up...it was TIED. MA. is NOT a shoe-in for Obama. They elected Deval and now regret it. Obama is Deval's clone (they even share speeches). Obama isn't going to play as well there as Hillary will. We could lose MA. in the GE.

    Don't the 2 Senators from MA., Kennedy and Kerry,  support BO? Why, I believe they do. What a slap in their faces that would be.

    If reomneyt is picked... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    ...New England changes considerably.  Also Michigan has to become questionable.

    [ Parent ]
    If Romney is picked (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by CST on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:08:17 PM EST
    There is NO WAY McCain will win MA.  We hate Romney here.  He spent the last year of his term travelling around the country bashing MASS to every other state in order to run for president.  He's the reason we have a Dem governer for the first time in a LONG time.

    [ Parent ]
    hope that's true. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:10:18 PM EST
    So the governors like Dukakis were a myth?

    [ Parent ]
    Not a myth (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by CST on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    But he was a while ago.  I guess it depends on your view of what a "long" time is.  But we have had republican governers since...

    And the bashing MASS thing by Romney is definitely true, and we definitely didn't appreciate it.  I think he spent something like 10 days in MA (an exaggeration) his last year of Governer.  Normally, we don't have a problem with someone running for president on our dime (see John Kerry), but it was the way that he ran for president, calling us crazies to people in South Carolina, etc... that we sure didn't appreciate.

    Also, it was his Lt. Governer running against Deval, and she lost big time.

    [ Parent ]

    Since you live in MA., (none / 0) (#85)
    by vicsan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:11:23 PM EST
    IYO, could McCain beat Obama? I was SHOCKED when I saw that poll showing McCain and BO tied.

    [ Parent ]
    I live in MA, and I think (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by dk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:27:18 PM EST
    it depends.  Moderate Republicans can definitely win in MA.  If McCain were to run to the center in his campaign (or at least if people believed that), then I do think he has a chance.

    Also remember that this is the state that has legalized gay marriage.  So far, only one candidate has openly gay-baited to win votes in this campaign, and that candidate is Obama.  This is one of the key differences between Deval Patrick and Obama by the way.  From the moment he started running for governor, Deval made it clear that he supported gay marriage, and once he was elected he expended political capital to ensure that the legislature defeated a bill to put an anti-marriage amendment on the state ballot.  Obama's gay-baiting (which I think is part of his overtly religious-themed campaign that is a general turnoff to many New Englanders) was a serious blow to his reputation among many around here.

    [ Parent ]

    In my opinion only (none / 0) (#112)
    by CST on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:23:51 PM EST
    McCain can't win.

    That poll surprised me to.  I imagine it has more to do with Deval than Obama, which is just wrong in so many ways.

    I think the better Deval does the better Obama does, and Deval has had some good press lately...

    I don't know any Hillary supporters here who would consider McCain, but I do live in Boston and the rest of the state is very different.

    Ultimately, I think the college crowd will pull this one out for Obama - we do have an obscene amount of students here, and a good number of those "creative class" dems as well.  Plus, given the Catholic Priest Scandal that occurred here in Boston, most Catholics (which make up a lot of the blue-collar vote here) I know seem rather forgiving of the whole Rev. Wright thing.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, you do (none / 0) (#168)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:47:39 PM EST
    You just don't know them personally.

    [ Parent ]
    ok... (none / 0) (#205)
    by CST on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:11:14 PM EST
    Let me re-phrase.

    None of the people whom I know for a fact are Hillary supporters - would vote for McCain in the fall.

    I am sure I have met people who are Hillary/McCain voters... but I wouldn't say I "know" them.  

    Most of the people I know are either young voters, or they are my parents friends who still hold "let's have a communist revolution" meetings/ parties.  Not exactly moderates, definitely not voting McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    One more group (none / 0) (#206)
    by CST on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:15:13 PM EST
    Or they are people I work with... In which case the Dems are still voting Dem and the Repubs will vote Repub.  No one cares about the "tone" of the primary, we all just want it to be over.

    [ Parent ]
    Check out these maps from hominid (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by goldberry on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    Hominid runs monte carlo simulations based on current polling date and projects them onto the electoral college maps.  
    It's not looking good for Obama.
    Here are the latest maps.    
    The Shakey Predictions of the Electoral Map (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:04:19 PM EST
    I only know one state, WA, and I'm not so sure Obama could win here. His primary wins were pre-misspeaks and insults. Most of the state is solid red, and the blue area (greater Seattle) has pockets of red, with a dominant "white working class" population creating the blue.

    If he continues to try to push Hillary out of the race, and if the rumors and web sites that are threatening riots in Denver pan out, I think his electoral map will be lucky to get any states.

    And Rossi is going to make another play</