What Is a Realistic Electoral Map For November?

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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?

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

    Obama's road to victory -- (none / 0) (#200)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:06:02 PM EST
    DKos -

    What do you think of this analysis?


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


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

    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
    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.


    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.

    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.

    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!

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

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

    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."


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


    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.


    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!



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

    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.


    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.

    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


    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.  


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

    Are the DLC listening? (5.00 / 0) (#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?!?


    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.

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

    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.

    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.


    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!

    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...

    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.


    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!

    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.

    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.  


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

    Jesse Jackson agrees: (none / 0) (#181)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:56:37 PM EST
    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.



    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.


    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.

    aren't you making a convincing (5.00 / 0) (#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 / 7) (#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.

    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.

    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?


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    helloooo Pres. McCain! (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:28:50 PM EST
    Obama's map? - He's unvetted by Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#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 / 3) (#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?


    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.



    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.

    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.

    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. :-)


    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.  


    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.

    MA (5.00 / 7) (#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
    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


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

    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.


    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...

    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.

    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.

    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).

    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".

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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
    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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 (none / 0) (#93)
    by lookoverthere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:17:39 PM EST
    for the governor's mansion. The GOTV effort should be pretty strong again and the campaign will probably be ugly. Rossi supporters heckle Gov. Gregoire at her events and have been doing it since she won election.

    I don't know if Gov. Gregoire's support of Sen. Obama will have any play, though Rossi will use anything to beat her in the fall.

    This will be very tight again (she only won by 500 votes last time) and ugly.


    OR and WA (none / 0) (#120)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:27:29 PM EST
    have very similar demographics so I will be interested in seeing how OR turns out.  Obama is spending money there, big time.  He projected to take the state by 5 pts, if he can get 50% of the Latino vote, he will get 52% of the white vote.  Seems to me he's want votes in OR, MT and SD to shore up the impression he can get the white vote.

    Sometimes I think the working class areas are different.  I notice in OR, there are more coffee shops and small art galleries, parks etc than is typical here in CA.


    Why "now not very relevant"? (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Raven15 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    By June 3, Clinton has a very good chance to be ahead in the popular vote, counting FL and MI (even with giving Obama all of the votes for non-committed in MI).

    Obama may (or may not) reach the delegate threshold and be crowned by the media and DNC, but we have an unprecedented situation here. I don't think the Party has ever given the nomination to someone who didn't win the popular vote in the primaries.

    BTD, are you convinced the Supers will declare for Obama soon? Are you thinking the FL and MI vote totals won't count and/or that this little detail of the popular vote will be ignored?

    Not much (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    hope for Obama presidency is what I see here. He has so many ways to lose it's not funny.

    As far as a VP goes, people vote for the top of the ticket and I don't see any candidate being able to deliver a state for Obama. When was the last election that a VP gave a state to the presidential candidate?

    giving a home state. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:09:16 PM EST
    It's possible that the VP gives an edge in subgroups.  

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:23:35 PM EST
    think that it's likely with Obama. The VP will be largely ignored while the GOP goes after Obama with 527's.

    Hmm (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:22:20 PM EST
    I don't see how someone like Strickland is a "unifying pick."  Outside of Ohio, only the political junkies even know there is a Clinton connection there.  If Clinton supporters are upset about the way Obama ran his campaign, I don't know how he wins them over simply by picking someone vaguely aligned with the Clinton camp.

    when was the last time (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:49:24 PM EST
    the Washington establishment ran a newly elected senator for the purpose of "changing" them?

    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:58:39 PM EST
    Never.  And it isn't happening this time either.

    Anyone who thinks Teddy Kennedy is looking for change in Washington besides the obvious shift in the balance of power thing is smokin' something.


    How about Edwards (none / 0) (#1)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:32:25 PM EST
    Invoker of the kinder, gentler WWTSBQ


    He might take some working class voters.

    As much as I like, respect and admire (none / 0) (#30)
    by scribe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:45:44 PM EST
    Edwards, he is not the right candiate for VP.

    He is perceived (incorrectly) and reported (by TradMed) as being too soft and kind.

    He would not unify the party nor energize the base sufficiently, IMHO.


    With neutrals like that who needs enemies ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ellie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:20:32 PM EST
    ... that build billion dollar media empires by broadcasting that they hate your freakin' guts.

    John Edwards still says he is remaining neutral in the Democratic presidential race, but the onetime candidate all but said Sunday it is impossible for Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination, and warned the New York senator not to damage the party in the primary campaign's final stretch (Edwards says Clinton must be careful,) CNN, May 12, 2008

    Dems, for the love all that is young and pure in the world, shake off the kool-aid and turn this bug into a feature. OMFG, this wild crush forward to grab camera time on Hill Hate and Obama Love is what's damaging the party.

    Can't someone at the DNC who's still thinking straight realize the benefit of playing up the suspense of a convention decision?

    Just because dems have spent decades ineptly fending off GOP slop doesn't mean that's the only way to make one's own party memorable and valuable to voters. Why not get both candidates promoting themselves and how fabulous the Dems are rather than feeding the Repug beast.


    So your previous speculation (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:34:12 PM EST
    that Obama had a higher ceiling is now FUBAR? (at least as EV counts are concerned?)

    I think I mostly agree with this assessment. However, I think Obama is in more serious danger of losing Pennsylvania than you suggest here.

    Agree on Penna (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by BarnBabe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:09:53 PM EST
    When Republicans say they think they have a chance now if Obama is the nominee, Penna is in trouble. And it really is not a red state. And talking to my Aunt in Florida, there is another problem for Obama. I looked at the final map for Dukasis. He took Wash, Ore, Hi, Wis, Mich, NY, Mass,WV and Iowa and one other. 10 states total. Bush even won Calif. I would like to see the pre-election map as comparison in 1988. 426-111 final result. Over 7 mil difference. The map has changed greatly since then thanks to Bill Clinton, but remembering the Demographics, I am not sure Obama takes all those new states given to him will hold. No matter the causus and primaries, true Republicans are not going to vote for him and the Indies might be 50/50. The map might be generous to him.  

    It's interesting (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:43:51 PM EST
    that every argument for Obama has slowly but surely fallen to the wayside as the primary has rolled along.

    It's worth remembering (none / 0) (#75)
    by liminal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    that Rendell, who is teh awesome, will work his hind end off for the Democratic nominee in the fall.  

    Correct (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:07:19 PM EST
    but he can only do so much. . .

    He can do a lot . . . (none / 0) (#127)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:30:13 PM EST
    I lived in PA for a long time and it is in many ways still a good old fashioned machine state.  PA will stay blue this cycle no matter who the candidate is.

    Obama needs to do a little better (none / 0) (#134)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:33:58 PM EST
    in the west. Philly and Suburbs can make you competitive, but they can't win the state for you.

    He needs to focus like a laser on Montgomery and Allegheny. I think he needs to figure out some way to connect with Scranton too.


    I agree . . . (none / 0) (#172)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:50:24 PM EST
    but as the unions fall in line and the Rendell machine kicks in, he should be able to pull it off.  It will be close, but PA usually is.

    McCain would have to run a bad campaign ... (none / 0) (#136)
    by lyzurgyk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:34:43 PM EST

    ... to lose Pennsylvania.   As a nearly lifetime resident, it's the one state I'll claim some expertise on.   Obama is very unpopular here outside of his core constiuency.

    That said, I think there is a fifty-fifty chance McCain runs a really bad campaign.  I liked the guy in 2000 but nothing I see about him now is appealing  He's made too many deals with the devil to get this nomination.    

    I gotta admit Obama's electoral map scares the heck out of me.    Hillary may have to take veep to save the election.  


    Ohio was a better bet (none / 0) (#7)
    by Fabian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:35:18 PM EST
    before the State AG scandal.

    Before the 2006 elections the news cycles were dominated by wave after wave Republican corruption, several which ended in convictions and prison sentences.  That was a definite boost to the Dems in 2006.  Now with the impeachment threatened for the Democratic AG, the perception of GOP as the party of corruption will fade.

    Strickland isn't exactly a Buckeye state hero yet.  He inherited a mess from the GOP and the economy hasn't done Ohio any favors for a long time.  But he certainly couldn't hurt.

    Yeah. . . (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:36:31 PM EST
    Taft and Noe are out of the picture these days, I think.

    Gone but not forgotten. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Fabian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:46:41 PM EST
    Sigh.  There were some great diaries on dKos about the Noe scandal, plus some fascinating research. But that was then.

    I'm beginning to loathe Presidential elections in ways that I never did before.  (I never did like them.)


    To be sure (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:39:32 PM EST
    I actually think Clinton would help Obama more in Ohio than Strickland.

    That's probably true - (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by liminal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:10:19 PM EST
    but recall regional politics.  Strickland's home base is in SE Ohio.  I'm confident that the urban areas in Ohio will be bluer than blue again this year, the AG scandal notwithstanding.  If the AG hangs in until September, I believe, Strickland can appoint a replacement.  

    But anyway: regional Ohio politics being what they are, I suspect that Strickland could deliver SE Ohio to the Dems in a way not seen since Bill Clinton's 1996 victory, and that's the region where Democrats gain the margin necessary to overcome Republican strongholds in the west of the state (Cincy region, for example).  


    BTW (none / 0) (#8)
    by ajain on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:36:22 PM EST
    I have a conspiracy theory.

    Hillary Clinton wants to play it out until the last primary so that she racks up delegates and incase something crazy happens to Obama between now and the convention - she is right there to pick things up. Also, if she is ahead in the popular vote, there maybe some justification for it.

    it's an absolute certainty (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:36:24 PM EST
    that if "something crazy" happens to Obama, like dying of a brain aneurysm - Hillary will be blamed.

    Not conspiracy (none / 0) (#12)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:37:48 PM EST
    Something will happen:  Obama will implode.  Big time.  Faster if another Wright-gate comes out.

    How about we just wait (none / 0) (#42)
    by Fabian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:51:32 PM EST
    and see what unfolds?

    Besides, I'm looking at the GE and it makes all the primary drama and hype seem over inflated.


    Good analysis. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:38:36 PM EST
    You don't mention Richardson though.  Richardson would help shore up NM and should help in NV and CO with Latinos.

    I don't like him as a candidate myself.

    I question whether Strickland could deliver OH or even, for that matter, whether Arkansas would vote for Obama even with Clinton on the ticket (though I suppose it is possible).

    IMHO, the biggest reason for Obama to put Clinton on the ticket is that it puts Florida an Ohio in play for Obama in a way they are not now.  If he wins those two states, we will see an electoral landslide.

    I still don't think the Obama campaign will offer it.  Even if they could get past the personal issue and compatibility with his "new politics"  I sense that Obama values message control . . . and there's no controlling the Clintons.

    Richardson is a nonstarter (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:40:50 PM EST
    a slap in the face of the clintons and Clinton supporters.

    He is unacceptable.

    He stinks as a campaigner to boot. but he is not possibly a VP possibility. Period.


    He was terrible (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ajain on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:44:55 PM EST
    I mean, besides being an ass for what he did, he was just a terrible candidate.
    His lame jokes and terrible debate performances should not be brushed aside.
    On a racial note - He will be no help for the white working class, rural america vote.

    Sadly, (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    the Obama campaign still seems quite cavalier about the impact of their decisions on Clinton supporters.  I'm concerned that this impact will not play a large part in their decision making.  

    Here's hoping the candidate steps in and saves himself from his advisors on this, including his wife.


    Obviously (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:17:20 PM EST
    he's not going to save himself. If he or his campaign thought it was important he would have done it by now. It's too late. Obama and his campaign have created such a racial divide in the party that lots of Clinton people are either going to sit home or vote McCain.

    Well there we disagree but there is (none / 0) (#132)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:32:47 PM EST
    an argument for a different thread.

    Putting HRC on the ticket would go a long way towards healing the divide in the party in my opinion.


    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:47:08 PM EST
    agree. Putting an experienced woman on the bottom of the ticket with an inexperienced man on the top will make women even madder.

    Besides, it's looking more and more likely that Obama will lose the general election. Why would Clinton want to be on a ticket like that?

    He certainly should offer it if he's the nominee but I don't think she should take it. Why go to all that trouble to only be in the senate again?


    Even if he hadn't done what he'd done (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:41:43 PM EST
    his gaffe-a-minute routine would be sure to negate any electoral advantage he might confer.

    That's the biggest problem. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:42:53 PM EST
    He's an incompetent campaigner.

    Richardson couldn't help himself in NV (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:55:33 PM EST
    How is he going to help Obama?

    Richardson couldn't even win Latinos (none / 0) (#210)
    by ruffian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:23:06 PM EST
    for himself, as someone here said recently.

    He may be a good diplomat, but he is not a good campaigner or politician.

    I find that I don't have many ideas for a good Obama Veep choice. Obama has not been in a public partnership with anyone enough to be able to envision the kind of person that would complement him.


    Pretty Good list, BTD (none / 0) (#15)
    by thomphool on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:39:11 PM EST
    The only thing I'd add is Michigan, even beyond the impact of the primary mangling is around the level of PA in terms of hold propensity.

    Also, did you happen to see OpEd in NYT yesterday on political division on county basis via Brookings.  Be interested in your take- it seems to back up pretty thoroughly many of the trends in Demographic settlement we've seen for the past 20 years and makes electoral map blowouts/ 60 point wins much much less likely in the future.  

    Also, the idea that Hillary (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:40:58 PM EST
    could deliver Arkansas for Obama is an interesting one. I consider it unlikely, but perhaps possible.

    Sounds reasonable (none / 0) (#20)
    by scribe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:42:09 PM EST
    but the other criteria I'd look at for the VP would be not to decrease the Democratic numbers in the Senate.
    While choosing HRC would not result in a net minus in the Senate (NY Gov. Patterson is a Dem and surely would have a Dem lined up for HRC's seat), I do not know (and thus have no opinion whether) we can be that sure about whether there would be a Dem of similar caliber ready in VA for Webb.  IIRC, there is a governor's election in VA this fall, and making replacing Webb an issue might not help.
    As to taking Strickland from Ohio, I agree he would be a beneficial, unifying influence.  The problem is two-fold (beyond whether he could deliver Ohio to Obama) - who to replace him in the Governor's mansion there, and what effect his leaving would have on trying to clean up the mess which Rove, Blackwell and all the rest of the Rethugs have made of Ohio.
    I agree on Sibelius not being able to deliver Kansas and would add she did not impress me in her speech following Bushie's final (halle-f'g-leu-jah!) SOTU earlier this year.  

    To be frank, whomever the VP candidate is will have wield brass-knuckles - not just grudgingly, but almost with a gleeful relish - in the campaign.  And, at the same time, have to both help unite the party and energize the party base (everyone who's been at each others' throats for a couple months now).  Can Strickland do that?  Or is he a genial, smiling Edwards (who would have been the better Pres. nominee in 04, according to many, myself included) who will get eaten alive by the sneering thug the Republicans are sure to nominate?

    Going after the Republicans with relish and beating them upside the head with Bush, Cheney and all their disasters is going to be a daily job - who in the Democratic party is able to do that and so inclined?

    Nope (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:44:22 PM EST
    IIRC, there is a governor's election in VA this fall, and making replacing Webb an issue might not help.
    VA holds odd year elections.

    Thanks for correcting me (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by scribe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:46:18 PM EST
    on that point.  

    Gleeful brass knuckles (none / 0) (#121)
    by smott on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:27:31 PM EST
    ...that's Rendell

    Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#137)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:34:45 PM EST
    I can think of no one else.  But I expect that the one thing Obama does not want on the ticket is a brawler.

    NC and VA (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimotto on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:42:28 PM EST
    It is clear that people won't take these states seriously until a Dem actually wins them.  But VA will have a Dem gov and 2 dem senators come Nov.  NC currently has a Dem gov (along with a democrat in virtually every statewide elected post), and will likely elect a new Dem as gov this fall, plus Hagan is currently tied with Dole in the senate.    

    Turnout in both states will be huge.  Both states will likely see significant (+10-20%) continued increases in voter registration.  Talk radio is big in NC, and it has spent the last 8 years vilifying McCain, and here comes Bob Barr, who has been its darling during the same span of time.  He'll easily siphon off 5% of McCain's vote.

    Neither state will be a slam dunk, but I think both will be in play.  

    I think neither VA or NC is in play (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:45:44 PM EST
    Obviously not, but why? (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimotto on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:47:02 PM EST
    Because (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:49:13 PM EST
    they have been easy GOP wins in every recent Presidential election and Obama does not change that game at all. I expect him to lose at least as badly as Kerry did on those two states.

    I guess we'll see. (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimotto on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:08:30 PM EST
    Gore and Kerry did little to inspire in NC, while people for whatever reason were fired up about Bush.  7 pt win over Gore and 12 pts over Kerry.

    This time around, huge number of people fired up about Obama, and conservatives are swallowing their bile over McCain (and have a potential outlet in Barr).  The fact that both states go Dem at the state level indicates that we're not talking about Mississipi or Alabama here.  A 6 pt swing towards Obama over Kerry and it's a tossup.  If Obama eats into the 15% of the african american vote Bush got, and we see a 10% increase in the african american vote over 2004, thats halfway there already.  Add in the 500-600k people who have moved into NC since 2004 (mostly northeasterners, moving mostly into the heavily democratic region in the Triangle-Greensboro-Charlotte curve), and I think we are primed to finally switch.


    You can't build a hypothesis on bad info. (none / 0) (#207)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:15:21 PM EST
    Your information is wrong to begin with.

    Plus Hillary has a wider MOE--margin of error. She will win Arkansas and West Virginia. She has a better than 50% chance of winning Florida, Penn. and Ohio.


    I agree BTD (none / 0) (#130)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:32:07 PM EST
    NC went Dem for Carter.  Hasn't been won by a Dem since.

    VA went Dem for LBJ back in 1964.  No Dem has won there since, either.

    I doubt Clinton or Obama puts those states into play.


    GA had Dem (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:13:02 PM EST
    governors for over a 100 years and yet they've voted Republican at the national level for almost every election in the past 20 years. The party of the gov. has nothing to do with how they will vote in the general election.

    NC state & national differ (none / 0) (#70)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    NC goes red in national state-wide elections, despite it being mostly Ds at the state level. This is the state that had Jesse Helms in the US Senate and if he hadn't decided not to run for re-election because of cancer, he would still be there. He was replaced with Elizabeth Dole. Richard Burr (also R) is the other one. Come the GE, NC will go 35 - 40% D & 60-65% R. The reason Obama won the primary handily is that it was a semi-closed one (only Ds & Is who choose to vote the D ballot). That will not translate into a GE win for the Ds. (True, 8 of the 13 Reps. in the House of Reps are Ds, but those aren't state-wide seats).  

    Two republican senators thanks to Erskine Bowles. (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimotto on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:19:35 PM EST
    That's what we get for selecting the eminently mediocre and underwhelming, but heavily financed and rich insider for our senate candidate against both Dole and Burr.  

    Bush beat Gore (also a underwhelming candidate at the time, regardless of his stature now) by 7 pts and extended his margin to 12 pts against Kerry.  Meanwhile, since 2004 we've added over 500K to our population, and the majority of these migrants are from the Northeast and vote Dem.  There's a huge number of excited and motivated Obama supporters in NC (I am one).  We'll see a record turnout amoung African Americans, which could approach 30% of the electorate (was 26% in 2004, and Kerry only got 85%).  Meanwhile, there's little excitement for McCain, and a potential protest vote for Barr (I think he'll get 5% of Republicans).  

    I don't consider NC or VA a slam dunk, but I think they are definitely in play.


    NC is not in play in 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:07:52 PM EST
    I don't know where you got your info. from but Bush beat Gore by 13 points in NC, not 7

    NC is solid Republican at the Federal level


    How do you know this? (none / 0) (#116)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:26:14 PM EST
    Meanwhile, since 2004 we've added over 500K to our population, and the majority of these migrants are from the Northeast and vote Dem.

    My friends from RI just moved to Chapel Hill.  They're both lifelong republicans and would never vote for Obama.


    nah (none / 0) (#126)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:29:36 PM EST
    Obama's going tfor Colorado and NM and maybe (unlikely NV.)

    I don't know where in NC you are (none / 0) (#151)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:41:19 PM EST
    but I'm in Charlotte -- and a lot of those new people that have moved to Charlotte are in banking -- I don't know where you found data that the new people are mostly Ds, but from I see around here, they are a pretty conservative lot, like bankers tend to be. Sure, there isn't much "excitement" for McCain, but I see these bankers falling in line by the time November comes. I predict a minimum of 10% loss for Obama, even with a 30% AA turn out.

    Thanks, BTD, I was waiting to see your thoughts (none / 0) (#41)
    by barryluda on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:50:34 PM EST
    It's especially interesting to see your "ramblings" about the only two potential VPs for Obama who might move the needle in terms of delivering a State in the GE.  Not enough time to study now, but I will tonight.

    Just out of curiosity, had you known this when this all began (that the math makes the path vs. McCain easier for Clinton than Obama) would you have started out supporting Clinton rather than Obama?  I would have, but at this point I agree with the prior commenter (sorry, don't have time to find it now) who said that at this point a Clinton win would be so (what was the word used?) "ugly" as to diminish Clinton's chances in the GE.  I guess if Obama implodes without Clinton going after him, then your analysis would stand as is.

    Isn't VP essentially a delegate race too? (none / 0) (#44)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:51:58 PM EST
    Hillary will have a very large fraction of delegates.  If a very small number of Obama's superdelegates or even pledged delegates decide that Hillary should be on the ticket, they can do it, regardless of what the others say.

    Interesting point. (none / 0) (#142)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:37:21 PM EST
    The party, through the super delegates, could indeed force Clinton on Obama.  The ramifications of such a move both on the GE campaign and, if they win, on the Administration might be terrible, however.

    What about Missouri? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    Isn't Missouri a probably pick-up for Clinton and a probable loss for Obama? Especially post-Wright?

    Missouri is gone for Obama. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:04:35 PM EST
    Clinton Could Win MO With AA Support (none / 0) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:18:39 PM EST
    Not sure she could recapture enough of the AA community to win state even though last two state polls indicate she could win MO.

    Obama could win MO with strong support of small town and rural Dems. The chances of him doing so particurly post Wright are almost non existent and state polls confirm this.  


    Yeah -- that's probably true... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:43:01 PM EST
    ...its one of those states that with Obama on the ticket, she could definitely win, same goes for Florida.

    It's Possible for Clinton (none / 0) (#138)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:36:02 PM EST
    CLinton 42 won MO twice.  Maybe he can bring the mojo back.  She barely lost by 1% in the primary.

    If McCain can hold onto One New england state (none / 0) (#64)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:03:05 PM EST
    NH Obama's pretty much losing in any scenario i've seen.

    That depends on Mccain winning Ohio.

    If Obama can swing ohio, then he'll probabaly win if he can get a two western states.

    The problem with NH (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:04:15 PM EST
    is that they already know all of the candidates. The utility of extra advertising is reduced.

    My prediction on OH and PA: (none / 0) (#90)
    by chancellor on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:15:52 PM EST
    Obama will lose both. Only a candidate perceived as a populist will win in those states, especially OH, where people losing their homes and their jobs in far greater numbers than the rest of the country are going to be looking for someone with an economic plan; they've been hoping for change for long enough to know that they need more than pretty speeches. Kerry only barely won PA, and the CW on that was the influence of all the money and "good works" of his wife, Teresa Heinz, carried the state for him.

    Sen. Obama has several months (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by daryl herbert on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:31:59 PM EST
    to transform himself into a populist, including by picking a populist running mate (a white male Democrat, preferably a governor, preferably from OH or FL, preferably with military service in his background).

    As long as he keeps bashing Sen. Clinton, that makes it harder and harder for him to do what he needs to do in the fall.  He should stop the attacks.


    FL gov is Republican (none / 0) (#157)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:43:43 PM EST
    Crist - and he is being touted as on McCain's short list.

    Well, Crist isn't married, (none / 0) (#173)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:50:58 PM EST
    and there are rumors that he's gay.  Doubt that he'd even be on a short list.

    He was out gay before he was in (none / 0) (#201)
    by bjorn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:07:27 PM EST
    the closet gay, it is well known in FL where my whole family lives.

    Preferably a gov., and preferably from FL (none / 0) (#178)
    by daryl herbert on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:55:05 PM EST
    Not necessarily both.  Just "preferably."

    The Democrat part is non-negotiable.  The white male part is probably what he will end up with, because we've already looked for a qualified woman/person of color to be VP, and haven't come back with any striking choices.  (Aside from Sen. Clinton, who will not be the VP, because the Obamas hate and despise her.)

    The rest of it is just desirable characteristics in a running mate.  Having any of those things in a VP would help him to win the general.


    Is it early for this kind of prediction? (none / 0) (#91)
    by fuzzyone on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    I'm not sure how much faith to put in the GE polling with the primary still going on.  I think that when tempers cool and attention turns to the GE a lot of these numbers may change.  The latest Gallup tracking is interesting in that it shows Obama starting to pull away from Clinton and both Clinton and Obama starting to pull away from McCain.

    Speaking of VP's (none / 0) (#98)
    by felizarte on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:19:20 PM EST
    First, let me put forth some assumptions which may be controversial but all in the spirit of total pragmatism.

    First, race is a factor and so is gender.  The primary results in several states demonstrate that. How would it be perceived in the general election having a black man as the top of the ticket and a white man at the bottom?  It may not matter at all which white man. Especially if the Obama/? team is running against two white men. But a white woman at the bottom of the ticket may be acceptable in the GE.

    In the primaries, the Obama campaign may have been able to manipulate/control the race issue to their advantage, but they have little control over what the opposition will do; a group more adept at slinging all kinds of mud. As I have said before, the race card was a monster created by the Obama campaign and it will devour them.  

    Someone upthread (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:29:21 PM EST
    started to get into this, but what about the Republican VP choice?  You can't analyze what affect a Dem VP choice will have (Strickland will pick up Ohio for Obama, for example) without looking at how a VP choice for McCain plays out (i.e. - Romney picks up most of the west Obama thinks he would win)

    Any ideas?


    Romney (none / 0) (#135)
    by CST on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:34:07 PM EST
    Will kill any Republican ticket.  It shows up in all the polls.  He is a typical Republican in a year that no one wants a typical republican.  The only reason McCain has a shot is that people consider him a moderate/maverick and less of a real republican.

    Ok - take your pick (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    If the argument is that Obama can pick a VP to strengthen his (possible) nomination because they have stronger resumes and bring in some sub group of voters where he does not do well, then the same must be said for McCain's choice. So, for all the pontificating that Obama could actually win with a strong VP,my question was what could McCain's VP pick do to counter that (not that I think he'd have to try very hard)?

    McCain (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:55:31 PM EST
    could pick a woman to run with them who is centrist enough to pick up a large portion of Hillary's vote.  My suggestion would be Senator Olympia Snowe from Maine, but she doesn't have large national exposure - yet.  She is pro-choice, pro-family, but a Republican centrist in every other way. I have worked with her office before, and I think that with an opportunity for Hillary's supporters to get to know her, they would support her.  She can also "out orphan" Obama with her life story.

    A quote from Snowe was featured (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:02:34 PM EST
    on NPR's Morning Edition today; something about, if you woke up in the White House, what would you do?  She sd. she would quickly apologize to the President's wife and leave.

    Hilarious (none / 0) (#209)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:16:48 PM EST
    I am not surprised that she has a great sense of humor.

    Too Librul IMO (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:59:54 PM EST
    I think he will pick either Condi or Leibertoad.

    Virginia (none / 0) (#102)
    by ea on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:20:06 PM EST
    What about Viginia?  It has been trending Blue, will have a strong governor running fore re-election and Webb is a possible VP pick.

    sorry (none / 0) (#107)
    by ea on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:22:40 PM EST
    Should have finished reading the post.  I don't think VA is a pipedream.  Reasonable people can disagree...

    No gov race this year and 2 terms (none / 0) (#212)
    by Joan in VA on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:28:46 PM EST
    not allowed. VA doesn't vote blue for prez.

    Order of vulnerability (none / 0) (#105)
    by Manuel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:21:28 PM EST
    BTD Can you place Clinton's and Obama's best electoral maps in order of vulnerability as you see it?  Also, don't you think Wes Clark could carry AK for Obama?

    On Electoral Map Topic (none / 0) (#148)
    by dem08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:39:32 PM EST
    Who is the best source for guessing/talking about accurately:

    1. How many voters won't vote for Hillary because she is a woman

    2. How many voters won't vote for Obama because he is black?

    Do we have ANY idea?

    A. Hillary has certainly smashed her way through with "working class" whites (sorry I hate the term since good entry level factory jobs went away...1972 and on...)

    B. Obama HAS won white voters earlier in the season.

    But does anyone have an idea of hard core "white male only" voters?

    I know gender/race present a dynamic situation and I know the MSM plays a role, but are there any good estimates?

    I still get angry with people who make racist jokes because they think I am white and on their side. The people are NOT Democrats in my experience, but in 2008 how many Bias Voters are out there for each issue?


    I'm beginning to think (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:48:43 PM EST
    That whole line of dialog is doing a great disservice to both candidates.

    To the entire Democratic party.

    Taking my current obsession to an Open Thread nearest you.

    In the clearest possible terms, every minute the democratic party spends the focussing on skin color and gender is a wasted minute and only helps republicans.  Simply because there's no way to discuss those issues without taking a side that hurts someone else.

    Serious.  Even the way Exit Polls are codified -- yes, just that in and of itself -- is becoming a big distraction.


    The "Math" and Rovian Jedi Mind Tricks (none / 0) (#161)
    by HenryFTP on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:44:20 PM EST
    I don't think this election is a replay of 1988, with the wheels coming off the Dukakis campaign down the stretch. The economy will be the key issue (as it was in 1932 and 1992). I don't see McCain being any more effective with lunchpail issues than Poppy Bush or Herbert Hoover.

    So MA, NY and CA will not be in play, although the Republican spin machine will try to trick the Democrats into spending excessive resources in those places (Rove's attempted California Jedi mind trick in 2000 lost Dubya the election until Poppy's Old Boy Network bailed him out again -- Dubya should have been trying to close the deal in Florida).

    As much as I respect John Edwards, I could not bring myself to support him because of his inability to deliver his home state (much less any other border state) in 2004. And while he has been airbrushed out of our Party family portraits, it still must be said that Lyndon B. Johnson delivered Texas to JFK in 1960. For those of you old enough to remember, that was quite a feat, given the virulent anti-Catholicism in much of the State. And Walter Mondale was a big help to Jimmy Carter in the Rust Belt in 1976.

    So BTD is dead on -- we all need to focus intensely on the battleground states, and given that Obama is the Standard Bearer Presumptive his VP choice should be someone who is most likely to help in Ohio and Western Pennsylvania. Where's John Glenn when the Party really needs him?

    The economy (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:55:29 PM EST
    won't really be an issue if it's McCain vs. Obama. Obama isn't really selling economic plans that appeal to the working class. McCain vs. Obama is going to be about national security and experience.

    My question (none / 0) (#176)
    by IzikLA on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:54:26 PM EST
    Why does everyone keep saying that Obama can win NV but Clinton can't?  Clinton did win Nevada in the primary, so I'm not sure where this general thinking is coming from.  Any answers so I can understand?

    I think Wes Clark is the perfect VP (none / 0) (#182)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:56:51 PM EST
    candidate for Obama.  He brings Clinton support, has military and foreign policy experience, he is extremely good as an attack dog, has extensive Fox Noise experience and I think he could deliver a lot of the states that neither one of the candidates could hope for with any of the other VP choices.

    Not that running mates have to agree (none / 0) (#187)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:00:15 PM EST
    But Wes did say voting "yes" on Kyl-Lieberman was the right thing to do.

    What does Wes bring to an Obama administration besides a better chance at winning an election?

    I doubt he'll take the job if that's the only reason one can come up with.


    A leading role in FP which would (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:10:07 PM EST
    I think be very attractive to him if Obama was smart enough to offer it.

    IMO Ohio can not be won by Obama and Strickland (none / 0) (#213)
    by Salt on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:34:04 PM EST
    can't bring it in for him Strickland has been clear on that.  Sebelius however can call Ohio home and her father was the former Gov she is also Catholic and may bring more to the table.  

    Poblano's Estimate (none / 0) (#215)
    by jcsf on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:22:06 PM EST
    Poblano's simulation engine has produced some fascinating results. According to his current data, the model predicts that Clinton would win four states against McCain that Obama is favored to lose (FL, AR, WV, OH). Meanwhile, Obama wins eight states where Clinton would likely fail (MI, WI, IA, CO, NM, NV, WA, OR).

    Link here

    This is a pretty good model, based on a lot of the demographic information you are concerned about.  Poblano's, an Obama supporter, is occasionally  skewed a couple of points towards Obama, however.

    To quote again:

    In the Frequently Asked Questions section of his site, Poblano lists the demographic variables that his model takes into account in each state. Included are John Kerry's 2004 performance, the candidates' respective fundraising efforts, and other factors such as income, race, religion, age, and education level.

    Also, a quote about MOE in election (none / 0) (#216)
    by jcsf on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:28:26 PM EST
    These projections illustrate the extraordinary level of flexibility enjoyed by the Obama campaign as they head towards the general election. Rather than focusing on simply winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, they have a big enough war chest and a broad enough base of support to create all sorts of contingencies in case one of those typical battleground states goes for McCain.

    "If Obama wins the traditional big three, he's going to have a tough time losing anyway," Poblano said. "But now you give him a margin for error where if something goes wrong in Ohio - if you're winning North Carolina and Iowa and Colorado, it's a very robust scenario for him with a lot of Plan A's, Plan B's, and Plan C's to win the election."

    It would be interesting to see how - and why - you differ from some of Poblano's demographic estimatations - run through 10,000 simulations.

    Where would you disagree? Why?  Based on what data?  Even given his model, as being somewhat accurate - what VP choice would help, to make Poblano's scenarios even more likely?