home

Electability

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:54:26 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Some new GE state polling from Ras:

WASHINGTON

Obama 51
McCain 40

Clinton 47
McCain 42

ARKANSAS

Obama 33
McCain 57

Clinton 53
McCain 39 [More...]

IOWA

Obama 44
McCain 42

Clinton 42
McCain 45

KANSAS

Obama 34
McCain 55

Clinton 39
McCain 55

ALASKA

Obama 41
McCain 50

MAINE

Obama 51
McCain 38

Clinton 51
McCain 38

Obama has strengths in the West that Clinton does not, but Kansas, for example, is not one of those states. Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada can be flipped by Obama from Red to Blue out West. I doubt Clinton can.

But Clinton has strengths Obama does not match in the East and other states. Arkansas is clearly one of them. West Virginia can also be flipped. And most importantly, Clinton has distinct advantages over Obama in Ohio and Florida for turning them Blue from Red.

These are competing electability arguments. Both are reasonable. More importantly, their competing strengths argue for a Unity Ticket imo.

Comments closed.

< Medical MJ Sellers Face 20 Year Minimums | Friday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Electability | 321 comments (321 topical)
    Electability arguments (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:57:48 PM EST
    That ignore strength in states that Kerry won aren't that interesting to me.

    How's Obama doing in PA. . .?

    RCP composite has him +5 (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:01:40 PM EST
    Clinton +10.She has an advantage there.

    Obama runs better in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

    [ Parent ]

    WI and MN are fair to point out (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:03:36 PM EST
    but I think Obama can't win Ohio, and will have a very tough time winning PA. I don't know how you overcome that.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:05:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What About FL and MI? (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:30:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Make me gag a little bit... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by GregA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:38:32 PM EST
    But I think you have to find an electoral map without Michigan this year for either...  Very strong anti-dem sentiment on the ground here in monroe county.

    [ Parent ]
    Michigan's only port (5.00 / 1) (#247)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:32:39 PM EST
    on Lake Erie won't vote for the Dem?  Why?

    [ Parent ]
    I Believe You Have Hit The Nail On The Head... (none / 0) (#133)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:47:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    McCain still ahead of Obama in WI (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:59:47 PM EST
    and ahead of Clinton in WI, with Obama and Clinton tied at both behind McCain by 4 points, per last Rasmussen poll here.  

    Not good for November but reaffirms what I said abou the primary and the local neocons encouraging crossover (to Obama at that point, which was before Rush pushed Clinton crossovers).  This drop for Obama really hasn't budged more than a bit in Wisconsin since the Rev. Wright debacle.

    [ Parent ]

    Did either Obama or Clinton (none / 0) (#249)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:33:49 PM EST
    beat McCain at any point?

    [ Parent ]
    Not since three months ago (none / 0) (#255)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:37:46 PM EST
    and the primary -- Obama's peak in terms of votes for November, not delegate votes for August.  Not many polls since, as you can see from the link.  

    [ Parent ]
    What About Massachusetts? (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:54:56 PM EST
    I can't believe he'll have to work to win there, but his polling has always been terrible.  I know Deval Patrick is unpopular, but that Obama polls so badly in the bluest of blue states worries me.  Not that he will lose Massachusetts, but what it could mean for other less blue blue states.  If he has to spend a lot of time and energy fighting for states Kerry won, it's going to make it harder for him to flip other states.

    [ Parent ]
    Mass voters had seen it all before. (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by jackyt on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:02:57 PM EST
    Evidently, Obama's Hope/Change message is a carbon copy of the Deval Patrick campaign. Mass. voters don't like what they bought the first time, so they're not inclined to be repeat customers.

    [ Parent ]
    35% only (4.50 / 2) (#196)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:10:56 PM EST
    compared to other states, Obama got only 35% AA advantage.  MYDD had a great diary on how it was odd that Mass was so low compared to the 60%, 80% and 90%.  I guess they know the routine, Patrick did not deliver on anything.  

    [ Parent ]
    No, he had a 35 point margin. (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:12:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    yes..did it again (none / 0) (#202)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:13:56 PM EST
    but much smaller than other states.

    [ Parent ]
    good. ahead by five points. (none / 0) (#269)
    by coigue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:45:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    up by 5. (none / 0) (#270)
    by coigue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:46:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Western states (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by nell on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:59:02 PM EST
    BTD, can you post any polls from these western states that show he has a better chance of flipping them? I don't really see him flipping Colorado, and why would you say he has a better chance than Clinton at Nevada or New Mexico when she won both states, albeit narrowly? I keep hearing this argument but I have yet to see any solid evidence of it.

    I wondered the same thing. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MMW on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:14:36 PM EST
    An explanation would be good.

    [ Parent ]
    See electoral-vote.com ... (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by cymro on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:19:07 PM EST
    ... for all the polls. Their maps and tables are updated every day with the latest polls. Their summary today has:

    Obama 237    McCain 290   Ties 11
    Clinton 273  McCain 248   Ties 17

    [ Parent ]

    This (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:28:02 PM EST
    this also doesn't even yet include the newest Arkanasas poll, which Hillary flips by a landslide.

    [ Parent ]
    There are many hispanics in NV and NM who (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:31:19 PM EST
    would not be inclined to vote for obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, I am so glad you said it. (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:33:51 PM EST
    I didn't want to point out the obvious.  

    [ Parent ]
    Someone Had To Do It.... :) (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:49:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Western States (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by christinep on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:12:32 PM EST
    I've been ranting about the interior West for years. While it is a very promising area for Dems (witness recent gains in Colorado and Montana), that may not be the case when the opposition runs a Westerner who has a significant degree of popularity/acceptability with Latinos. Personally, as a Coloradan, I think that the odds of Colorado going blue in the Presidential are not as good as some say. It depends; there certainly is Democratic momentum with the Convention, the Senate race (Udall), and the trend. But--at best--it will be close.  I used to feel optimistic about Nevada--until McCain became the nominee. I used to feel optimistic about Montana--but, the gun question always looms large there (with Obama's record in Illinois and the "questionnaire" controversy, that may be the attention-getter.) The degree of support from Latinos could be the key in New Mexico--and, that means more than Richardson saying some good things. If I were betting, I'd bet on New Mexico as the best chance, followed by Colorado. Together, the total electoral votes don't hold a candle to Florida or Ohio.

    [ Parent ]
    I think these numbers do suggest (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:59:42 PM EST
    either might win if the election was held today.  The problem is that it won't be held today. Clinton is getting stronger, Obama weaker, imo. Obviously, there is not telling what it will look like 5 months from now, but if I were a betting person I would put my chips on Clinton being able to go the distance.  I fear Obama's slide may continue.

    If One Looks (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by The Maven on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:15:04 PM EST
    at the trends in many of these state matchups, it becomes even clearer that Clinton has been gathering strength, whereas Obama has been running in place or slipping backward.

    For example, in Arkansas, Clinton gained a net of 21 points versus McCain in the two months since the last Rasmussen poll, while Obama gained only 5.  Or in Iowa, where Clinton did 12 points better than her performance six weeks ago, with Obama doing 2 points worse.

    The momentum in the general election matchups is almost entirely in her favor, yet the superdelegates coming out recently don't seem to have noticed this.  Or they just. don't. care.

    [ Parent ]

    They don't care... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by NWHiker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:18:30 PM EST
    Everyone has made up their mind that Obama is the nominee, and that's that. They don't care if it means losing. They don't care. It totally blows my mind, but they really don't care.

    Jim McDermott came out this AM for Obama. He had the gall to say that Obama had "won more voters", iirc. Ummmm. Not if you could all the votes, Jim.

    [ Parent ]

    Not true (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:23:03 PM EST
    and I refuse to take that mindset just because the media and the Obama camp wants us to.

    McDermott announced his endorsement yesterday.

    Today, Jay Inslee and Norm Dicks both went on the news and said they saw no reason whatsoever for them to move away from their endorsement of Hillary. Cantwell and Murray take the same stand.

    [ Parent ]

    Well. Gregoire (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by oldpro on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:36:02 PM EST
    on a conference call the other day said she is 'working on Patty and Maria.'  Some time ago, Maria indicated she'd go with the leader in pledged delegates....grrr...

    Understandable that Chris would innoculate herself by choosing Obama...but not smart for any of our Emily's List promoted/elected pro-choice women to abandon Hillary...we're keeping score.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, my Congresswoman (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:02:07 PM EST
    got a lot of help from EMILY's List and others of us -- and is an Obama super-delegate.  Taking names. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    She (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by nell on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:21:50 PM EST
    actually clarified that remark later to make it clear that the popular vote was an equally valid measure. I also know that she has continued to be involved in Hillary's fundraising efforts, etc. When she first made that remark, a lot of confused people made calls to her office, and they made it clear that she was not ditching HRC.

    [ Parent ]
    That's really funny (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:22:59 PM EST
    CG must not realize that no one tells Patty Murray or Maria Cantwell what to do, and both of them have a long relationship with the Clintons. CG barely won her governorship for a really good reason.

    [ Parent ]
    Ooops. (none / 0) (#66)
    by NWHiker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:26:07 PM EST
    I had no power all evening yesterday and didn't hear about McDermott until the morning, sorry for the inaccuracy.

    I'm still contributing. I'm still fighting. I'm still angry.

    Jay is my rep and dh will hopefully be talking with him this weekend. Dh knows what to mention. :)

    [ Parent ]

    Not everyone....just the ones with stars in their (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:34:19 PM EST
    eyes, wearing blinders and have their fingers stuck in their ears saying "I can't hear you".
    Because they don't want to face facts...obama is not a viable candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:00:01 PM EST
    please show me a map that shows Obama is the better candidate in the GE.

    Both arguments are not equally reasonable. HRC's is far stronger and always has been. Without OH, FL and WV Obama is toast.

    Sorry.

    Not (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by nell on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:01:42 PM EST
    to mention the fact that her path is far easier. All she has to do is keep Kerry's map, which I think she will, perhaps with the exception of NH, and add Arkansas and/or Ohio. I think she will add both of those states and stands a great shot of adding WV, perhaps KY, and FL is in play...

    His path is untested and it is not an equally good argument. I have yet to see solid evidence that he puts those western states into play.

    [ Parent ]

    The "untested" path (5.00 / 2) (#235)
    by christinep on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:28:10 PM EST
    One of the best adjectives I've seen to describe Obama's electoral vote path is your word, Nell" Untested. The Western Theory is "Untested" (at best.) The Virginia-Carolina-in-play Theory is untested (even more than the Western push.) As a lifelong Democrat, I'd love to see those two theories work. (As a Coloradan, I'd truly love to see the West go blue.) With McCain's Western background and support from Latinos, the Western theory is really spotty. With McCain's military creds and his ole boy appeal, the Virginia & Carolina goal seems quite unreachable. What is very attainable is the path of holding the traditional Dem states (at least what Kerry took) and add Ohio. Switch out NH with Ark, and try to add another (like WVa or Florida) for good measure. That is Hillary's clear-er path. (Oh...I think she has every bit as much chance of winning New Mexico as Barack does in view of her primary win there and, especially, in view of her strong support from the Latino community in the Southwest.)

    [ Parent ]
    Let's be realistic (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:02:35 PM EST
    Obama can easily afford to lose WV. The problem states are Ohio and Pennsylvania. I think he can win neither, frankly. That's his problem.

    [ Parent ]
    why in the hell aren't the media (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:04:58 PM EST
    talking about this. IF they want a good story why aren't they confronting SDs asking them how they can support Obama when Clinton will have more votes and stronger electability argument.  Why don't they want to see the SDs sweat? They are making it so easy for them!!

    [ Parent ]
    They want their BFF McCain (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:07:34 PM EST
    to win the White House.

    It will be much, much easier if Obama is the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    please tell me where all the western states (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:14:21 PM EST
    are, that dems are magically going to win?

    FACT: we won't win without Ohio, Florida and West Virginia.

    [ Parent ]

    its the 7 new ones (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:17:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Um, cuz they're waiting until after.. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by cosbo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:16:12 PM EST
    the nomination of course...why would they want to inform voters of the truth NOW!

    [ Parent ]
    Good point, bjorn. (none / 0) (#162)
    by Oje on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:57:59 PM EST
    Never considered how the media has nurtured Obama in this way the past two months. Until last Wednesday, who was winning the SD's did not matter. Suddenly, it is the sign of things to be.

    [ Parent ]
    because they've already elected obama. (none / 0) (#296)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:02:02 PM EST
    he is already the president in their minds, nevermind the silly primary.  

    this election season has been nothing short of vomitous.

    why did she hire mark penn????  why?!?!?!  why would she pick a man - especially that man - to run her campaign?  

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think dems can easily afford to lose (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:10:43 PM EST
    West Virginia. Ask Al Gore. Colorado isn't not voting democratic, not this year.  

    Hillary easily brings W. Virginia, and Arkansas. Contrary to media spin, her electoral map is bigger

    [ Parent ]

    Obama could win without West Virginia (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:12:19 PM EST
    but not without Ohio. And frankly, the two are related. So is Pennsylvania, but there's an eastern buffer in that state.

    [ Parent ]
    Not unless he turns a reliably red state blue (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:22:54 PM EST
    I can't see one that is ready to vote dem this year

    [ Parent ]
    True. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by liminal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:40:26 PM EST
    Much as I hate to say it, we aren't essential to Obama - but the big loss in WV reinforces his deficits in Ohio.   The big blue urban areas are really important to winning Ohio, but you can't win Ohio based on the urban/college vote and turnout alone, or Gore and certainly Kerry would have done so.

    You have to be able to run well and perhaps win some of the counties/towns in the the Ohio River Valley that combination of the rust belt and Appalachia from, say, Pittsburgh to Portsmouth, to offset the huge wingnut advantages in the western half of the state.

    [ Parent ]

    The Ohio-PA-WVa tie (none / 0) (#264)
    by christinep on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:44:10 PM EST
    Unless all the states are magically re-arranged and some new ones added, I agree with you completely that the key is Ohio. I believe that we have seen Hillary is best situated to unlock that door--because of strength in the surrounding area as well as Ohio.  But, for Barack, because of demonstrated weakness in that region, he will have unusual challenges to get through the Pennsylvania door for starters. (The PA primary counties should be reviewed to see the lopsided nature of her victory outside Philly, State College, and Harrisburg. The numbers in western and northern PA resemble WVa. Like you, Andgarden, I think that signals more than just primary problems for Barack.) For years, it has been almost axiomatic that a Democrat needs two of three states to win the WH.  Those states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:04:17 PM EST
    He clearly gonna lose WV. It would be better to win it of course.

    [ Parent ]
    He can't afford to lose (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:06:47 PM EST
    any Democratic states at this point.

    But you're right, I meant to put PA in my little list. :-)

    We really have to think ahead here. We know how the GOP slime machine is. Who do we think can stand the inevitable attacks better?

    My $$$ is on HRC.

    [ Parent ]

    Other than the fact that TV schmundits (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:21:39 PM EST
    like to point out Obama's exciting new Path to Electoral Victory Map, with Colorado and Nevada and New Mexico circled, I don't understand his electoral math.  The schmundits -- and he -- seem to assume he has PA and MI in the bag.  He doesn't.  They admit that he has no chance in FLA. Ohio is seen as a "toss-up."  It's not, for Obama.

    Neither Obama nor Clinton can win Texas, but Clinton can make the Goopers spend more money there. Clinton can pick up Florida; Obama can't. Clinton can pick up Arkansas; Obama can't.  

    What the hell are the possibilities of picking up a few Western states with scrawny vote totals in comparison to the probabilities of losing traditional Democratic states, or potential pick-ups, with huge electoral blocs?  

    It still does not compute.

    [ Parent ]

    and I'd like to know the ECollege numbers (none / 0) (#154)
    by Josey on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:55:48 PM EST
    Obama can't win FL, but wouldn't he need to win 2-3 states to compensate?


    [ Parent ]
    West Virginia? (none / 0) (#225)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:23:21 PM EST
    We've never relied on WV.  The state has turned very, very red.

     I don't know that Florida is reliably Democratic in the general election if Clinton is the nominee, either.  Senator McCain is popular there, and Crist is a very popular governor.  

     I would keep my eyes on Ohio and Pennsylvania, but I don't know that an argument from primary results is a big indicator for the general election.

    [ Parent ]

    Checked it out on line on 270towin (none / 0) (#280)
    by FLVoter on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:53:12 PM EST
    WV went Dem in 1968, 1976, 1980, 1988, 1992 & 1996. Went Repub in 1972, 1984, 2000 & 2004.  Would be nice to get back to Dem since in recent history went Dem more than Repub.

    [ Parent ]
    bill clinton (none / 0) (#319)
    by isaac on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:12:26 PM EST
    'relied' on it on the way to 2 terms and the greatest presidency of our lifetimes.  if either kerry or gore could have relied on it they'd have been elected.  no other dem has won without west virginia and neither will obama

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary is by far more electable. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:04:33 PM EST
    You don't have to change the map for her to win.  plus, she'll win WV, Arkansas and probably Tennessee and Missouri.  McCain will win these states, "Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada".  You can put that in the bank.

    I actually disagree with this (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:09:41 PM EST
    She probably would not win Tennessee and would have a very tough time with MO (probably as tough as Obama will have with PA).

    Obama could win Colorado and New Mexico, but not Nevada.

    [ Parent ]

    After the Republicans get done with Obama (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:14:14 PM EST
    he won't win any Western states at all.

    [ Parent ]
    Most likely (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:16:34 PM EST
    Very likely.....probably a given.  The Republican pols know how to push all the Western buttons

    [ Parent ]
    CF: (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:24:46 PM EST
    George W. Bush, super-wealthy, Connecticut-born, horse-fearing cheerleader and AWOL Champagne Unit pilot turns into:

    George W. Bush, Texas rancher who clears brush, wears cowboy boots and supports the troops. And such a "treat in jeans!"

    Al Gore, actual Southern guy who grew up on a farm, was painted as an elitist and did not even win his home state of Tennessee.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has many weaknesses to (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:28:42 PM EST
    exploit in the Western mind.  The West is ready for a change but you can't be of the mindset that anybody deserved 9/11 and you can't befriend Hamas or even smell faintly like it.  McCain is going to make Texas Toast out of him in the West after they pull all their dirty business.

    [ Parent ]
    False analogy (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:26:34 PM EST
    Gore was signicantly more liberal than his home state. Hence the loss. This is really very simple.

    [ Parent ]
    Gore did not run as a liberal... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:37:36 PM EST
    he ran as a more conservative Bill Clinton with better "family values." His perceived elitism did him in.

    [ Parent ]
    Perception is reality (none / 0) (#145)
    by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:52:56 PM EST
    and it's condescending to say that Tennesseans didn't know Gore well enough to know how to vote.

    [ Parent ]
    No way... (none / 0) (#243)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:30:25 PM EST
    ...he was running against a southern governor who threatened to veto a repeal of the state's sodomy law that only applied to homosexual sex.  I remember commentators discussing how abortion and gay rights were troubling issues for a lot of evangelicals in TN.  It was not his elitism that cost him the election, it was the perception of being a social liberal.  Frankly, it hurt Kerry, too.  

    [ Parent ]
    Gore is an evangelical Christian. (none / 0) (#256)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    I think "social liberal" and "liberal elitist" are fairly synonymous, personally. I doubt we disagree much.

    [ Parent ]
    He could if McCain were not the Repub nominee. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:15:58 PM EST
    I think McCain will win Colorado and New Mexico.  

    Tennessee and Missouri are long shots, but doable.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain drives a stake (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:21:50 PM EST
    in Obama's electability argument.

    [ Parent ]
    That's why (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:26:23 PM EST
    the Party picked him. He's the only one that even has a reasonable shot at it this year.

    [ Parent ]
    MO Is Doable IF She Can Get Strong (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:21:46 PM EST
    AA support, but that is a very big IF. It would be a squeaker but at least 50 - 50 IMO. Obama no way.

    [ Parent ]
    Please explain why you think (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:21:05 PM EST
    Obama could win the GE in CO and NM.

    [ Parent ]
    Democratic state, Democratic year (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:24:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Great bumper sticker, in certain states. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:29:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sen. Obama is not viable in 11 of the 14 Western (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by wurman on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:00:58 PM EST
    States.  He may be likely in CA, OR, WA.

    His gun contral views will blow him completely out of the contest in all others.  The NRA will take him apart & feed him to the 2nd Amendment Foundation.

    He's waffled all over on this, but the wingnutz have quotes & filled out forms that will make him a "don't start."

    And there's a lot of other stuff, too.

    [ Parent ]

    She polls better (none / 0) (#291)
    by Benjamin3 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:58:02 PM EST
    in Missouri because she can be competitive with McCain in the rural counties.  Obama gets blown out there.

    [ Parent ]
    Hominidviews.com has Hillary with an 87% chance (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Exeter on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:06:54 PM EST
    of winning and Obama with a 44% chance of winning. I think when you actual do the probabilities of Obama states and Clinton states, you see that we are in real trouble with Obama as the nominee.

    And that map (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    is very generous to Obama, in fact. It gives him a lot of Western states and allows him to have a shot at beating McCain in FL, NC and VA.

    In reality I'd say his chances are much worse. No way he wins those three.

    [ Parent ]

    I am not polling clever (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:06:58 PM EST
    But this is how I see it.  The Dems have an overall better chance at winning in any case this election, (Krugman's economy argument), Obama has the same map as Kerry.  Hillary takes away the hard to get voter, the one the Dems keep trying to seduce that makes us lose each time.  

    If a Dem will flip a Western state, any dem will do it, but it's those eastern states that don't flip easy.  Therefore, Hillary advantage.  Probably a million flaws in my reasoning.  But I think the West is ready to go any Democrat.  In truth, Hillary did not compete in the West.  

    I think CA may not be a Dem. given (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:22:39 PM EST
    if the Marriage is Between and Man and Woman folks have something to vote on in Nov.  Plus the anti-condemnation folks.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it was in danger before (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:28:27 PM EST
    the gay marriage thing but now for sure.

    [ Parent ]
    If Arnold isn't going to challenge it (none / 0) (#87)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:30:34 PM EST
    and it's a State by State decision, why would it impact the GE?  I'm not challenging your thought, I truly don't know.

    Isn't Lockheed in So California? They just got a nice government contract.

    [ Parent ]

    because (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:34:33 PM EST
    there is a petition that already has over a million signatures to put it on the Nov ballot as an amendment to the state constitution.
    it could turn out millions of conservative voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh no. That plus affirmative action on ballots (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:06:51 PM EST
    in several states -- such as Missouri, as I recall -- really has to be factored into this in terms of turnout of more conservatives.  

    The gay-marriage ban amendment in Wisconsin last time made it the squeaker, the closest state of all.

    [ Parent ]

    Affirmative Action DOA In MO (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:28:58 PM EST
    They failed to get the necessary signatures to get affirmative action on the ballot in MO. Thank gawd.

    [ Parent ]
    Still on on Colorado (n/t) (none / 0) (#248)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:32:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Iowa might be next (none / 0) (#218)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:19:40 PM EST
    I guess

    [ Parent ]
    Ward Connerly---anti-afffirm action guy (none / 0) (#267)
    by lookoverthere on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:45:21 PM EST
    Ms. mag and colorlines for info.

    Strong animosity is brewing over upcoming November elections in Colorado, because of a controversial anti-affirmative action initiative making its way on to the ballot. If adopted, the amendment would end all affirmative action programs, including equal opportunity measures in higher education and public employment. Similar anti-affirmative action initiatives have also been introduced in Nebraska, Missouri, Arizona, and Oklahoma. Founder of the American Civil Rights Coalition, Ward Connerly, is spearheading this national effort to end affirmative action. The California millionaire has had success in the past with similar measures in California, Washington, and Michigan.


    [ Parent ]
    Oh, I heard about the 1M signature (none / 0) (#242)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:29:28 PM EST
    petition, but didn't realize how it was playing into the process (only 1/2 listening). Guess that's why Arnold is happy to do nothing.

    [ Parent ]
    yep (none / 0) (#261)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:42:59 PM EST
    thats arnold

    [ Parent ]
    I agree...they are taking (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:29:43 PM EST
    it for granted.  Watch McCain pull an Arnold, and California is gone.  

    [ Parent ]
    McCain really a (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:36:21 PM EST
    "california republican"


    [ Parent ]
    Plus, a respected universally for (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:56:34 PM EST
    his being a Vietnam vet and POW and supporting military spending.  Lots of active duty, vets, and military contractors in CA.

    [ Parent ]
    plus high Latino pop... (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by jackyt on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:18:35 PM EST
    McCain gets points among them for stand on immigration.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't this exactly how Bush got (none / 0) (#244)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    Ohio last time?

    [ Parent ]
    CA is 30% Hispanic (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by nellre on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:24:52 PM EST
    And Hispanics don't vote for Obama for whatever reason.
    CA is not a given.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama does not have the Kerry map (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:23:44 PM EST
    He cannot count on PA. He cannot count on MI. And he cannot count on FLA, which as you all recall, Gore actually won.

    [ Parent ]
    My way of viewing it: (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by thomphool on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:26:04 PM EST
    You win 3 of the 4, OH, PA, MI, FL- you are the next President.

    You win 2 of the 4, it comes down to Upper Midwest, Mid South, Pacific Northwest and the Southwest.

    You win 1 of the 4, you have no margin for error and have to sweep the other toss up states and turn an unlikely state (for Dems, CO, VA or NC, for GOP, NJ, MA).

    The way I see it, Clinton has the best chance of winning 3 of the big 4. She has a better chance to sweep the big 4.  If any candidate does that, ballgame over.

    Obama has the best chance of winning if the big 4 are split 2-2.  Her losing both OH and FL would make her map very tough.

    Obama is more likely to lose 3 of the big 4 than Clinton, thus making the path hard.  If he does lose 3 of the 4 though, he has an outside shot of winning, while Clinton would not.  It's an extreme outside shot though, and this is the scenario that should be scaring Democrats.

    Winning the big states is going to be highly correlated with winning the the argument economy.  Clinton (was) probably better positioned to do that, but that's not to say Obama can't win on the economy.  Yes Obama has this an area of weakness, but so does McCain, and it is something he has a chance to win come November.  Clinton would almost certainly win the economy battle come November.

    That seems to be the electability debate to me.

    [ Parent ]

    very helpful, thanks (none / 0) (#75)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:28:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama peaked in February. (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:13:36 PM EST
    Specifically, in WI.  Let's look at states won since the beginning of March.
    HRC:
    OH
    TX
    RI
    IN
    WV

    BO:
    VT
    WY
    MISS
    NC

    BTD, I'd really like to hear your argument for how BO is the stronger GE candidate.  

    The Unity ticket is a crock, IMO.  No one votes for VP.

    No one is a bit strong masslib. I would (none / 0) (#51)
    by jes on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:22:32 PM EST
    vote for VP if Hillary gets the nod.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD already laid out a few days ago... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Exeter on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:26:43 PM EST
    ...why Hillary is the slightly better general election candidate.  

    [ Parent ]
    Because of the electoral college (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    what difference does it make if either candidate can win with a bigger percentage of votes? A one vote win takes all electoral votes.

    Being a Washingtonian, either democratic candidate will be able to win the state. McCain really alienated this area when he actively, and proudly made sure Boeing did not get government contracts.

    In the past 3 months, he's given a huge tanker deal to Airbus and gave them 100,000 new jobs; and, today the pentagon awarded Lockheed another contract Boeing was hoping to get.

    Anyone who cannot see how much (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by kenosharick on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:23:19 PM EST
    stronger Clinton is, is not paying attention. Wisconsin (where I am From) was the closest state in '04, and after rev. wright WILL NOT go for Obama. Neither will Iowa. He will have to fight to hold Mass and NJ. He also has little chance in Co; none in Virginia or the South either. Hillary holds most(if not all)Kerrey states PLUS puts WV,OHIO,Florida and Ark. into play. Her path to 270 is clear- he will be lucky to hit 200.

    You're right but it doesn't matter (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:24:53 PM EST
    The underlying dynamics strongly favor either HRC or Obama to beat McCain. America switches horses every eight years in the best of circumstances (see Bush v. Gore), so after eight years of Bush there is no way, none whatsoever, that Republicans keep the White House.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain way outruns the generic (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:26:14 PM EST
    Republican number. I'm sorry but it's a fact. Things may change, but right now he's on track to be the next President.

    [ Parent ]
    'Fact?' Or your opinion? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:28:58 PM EST
    I've noticed you often tend to conflate the two.

    Do you really believe with the increased Dem registration we've seen, the disastrous state of GOP organization and fundraising, Obama's fundraising prowess, and America's distaste for three consecutive terms in the White House for one party, that McCain -- anathema to the conservative base -- has a chance in hell?

    If so, how are you getting such a rep here as being politically astute? Think, man, think. Look at the trends, the dynamics, the history.

    [ Parent ]

    money did not help (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:33:16 PM EST
    Obama in PA, OH, TX, West VA, etc....

    [ Parent ]
    It's helped him win the nomination is what (1.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:39:29 PM EST
    Come on, are you all really this daft? I get that you don't like Obama, I don't either. But you don't think he can beat McCain, whom Republicans don't even like?

    What are all these new Democrats going to do? Not vote in November, after they voted in freaking primaries and caucuses for months now?

    Come on, people, think.

    [ Parent ]

    You are dreaming (none / 0) (#123)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:43:29 PM EST
    If you haven't noticed, most U.S elections are won on race and culture, not economics

    [ Parent ]
    Primary vis-a-vis General (none / 0) (#302)
    by christinep on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:05:44 PM EST
    Jim: Your frustration at many of us here is understandable...if you have been focused mostly on the Primary portion of the campaign. A part of me still wonders why the Clinton campaign underestimated the need for a strong start, etc...and, here we are. But, all the stuff about fundraising and organization and enthusiasm may not make a dent in some key demographics in key states. Think about Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.  A Democrat who would win always has to think about them. And, win them (or, at least, two out of the three.) Think about how those states are realistically within Obama's reach considering not just the large losses in two of them and the smoldering issue in the other one. This isn't just a matter of everyone getting on board. Those states are tough to win; and, PA is definitely not a given with Obama (demos of 60 of the 67 counties in the primary.) Meanwhile, McCain is a Westerner running in the West and a military man for Va and NC.  Think about it.

    [ Parent ]
    I look at the head-to-head polls (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:34:35 PM EST
    none of which show anything massively different from 2004. McCain is a strong candidate. He's defying the trends.

    Look, I can parrot the "winning is inevitable" line from Daily Kos too, but I don't happen to believe it.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain stronger than Bush/Cheney? (2.33 / 3) (#117)
    by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:41:36 PM EST
    Sorry, buddy, you're off the rails. I don't even know what to say to that.

    McCain will raise maybe a quarter of what Bush/Cheney '04 raised. Bush/Cheney was loved, LOVED by the base, McCain is loathed by the conservative base as well as the punditry, who you will recall adored Bush/Cheney as well.

    I get that you don't care for Obama, I don't either. But I haven't let my brain rot because of it.

    [ Parent ]

    This is not just about my dislike of Obama (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:50:05 PM EST
    If I thought he were a sure win, I'd say so. Hell, I'm going to vote for him. But I'm just looking at the polls.

    You can have your "trends," but I have electoral-vote.com

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, lordie. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:56:05 PM EST
    How absolutely perfect, you have summed up the blogosphere in one sentence:

    "You can have your 'trends,' but I have electoral-vote.com."

    In other words, nothing that happened in the primaries matters, there's this website I go to, see....

    [ Parent ]

    What electoral-vote.com reflects (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    is pretty much exactly what's happened in the primary. Let Tom Davis explain:

    Obama is a quintessential cultural liberal - the candidate of Hyde Park, the University of Chicago and Harvard.  Educated upscale voters from both parties, as well as independents of similar backgrounds, identify with his style and rhetoric.  Blue collar voters aren't so sure.

    Exit polls in West Virginia showed that two thirds of Clinton supporters were unwilling to commit to Obama in the fall - and that's just among Democrats!  With an economy perceived to be failing, these voters should be easy prey to ANY Democrat, but they're not.  Herein lies the key for the McCain campaign, and potentially for alert Republican Congressional candidates.

    Over the last twelve years, partisan alignments have moved away from wealth and economics to cultural and social issues.  Some of the wealthiest precincts in America, from McLean, Virginia to Beverly Hills; from Potomac, Maryland to Beacon Hill; from Newtrier to Shaker Heights, voted for John Kerry by substantial margins.  But Harlan County (Bloody Harlan), Kentucky, Bluefield, West Virginia and most of Appalachia voted overwhelmingly for Bush.

    [. . .]

    I point this out because Obama's appeal is to the liberal cultural base of the Democratic Party, not to its liberal economic base.  His connection to high income suburbs, the granola belt and college towns, is strong, but his connection to poorer whites, rural voters and other voters who may be susceptible to the Democrats' message on the economy is not yet demonstrated.




    [ Parent ]
    Six Months out (none / 0) (#241)
    by caseynm on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:29:09 PM EST