home

The Electoral Map

The most recent electoralvote.com electoral map provides a picture of the election that I largely agree with. What it means in my opinion is what I have been saying for a while now - this election will be decided by Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan (now add Missouri.)

Right now, the map shows McCain holding the Solid Republican South and Obama holding the Gore/Kerry states (plus Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico). Obama's ability to take his electoral vote number comfortably over 270 depends on a showing of a 1 point lead in Ohio, a 3 point lead in Michigan, a 1 point lead in Missouri and a 5 point lead in Pennsylvania.

To get to 270, McCain needs to hold Ohio and take Michigan and/or Pennsylvania from the Gore/Kerry column (assuming he holds Virginia, if Obama wins Virginia, then he won in a landslide and all of this is moot). More . . .

I think Obama's idea of contesting as many states as possible is terrific. He certainly has enough money to do so. The more McCain is defending in Virginia and North Carolina, the less he is on offense in Ohio, Michigan, Missouri and Pennsylvania.

But make no mistake, if this is a close race, as I suspect it will be, those are the four key states that will decide the election.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< How To Read A Poll: Part X | SCOTUS: Gitmo Detainees Have Constitutional Habeas Rights >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:38:57 AM EST
    chances of Obama taking MO are slim to none. The Rev. Wright fiasco make him drop double digits in that state. If his support is that soft then the GOP can easily throw something out before the election to make sure Obama can't win there.

    PA is a big question mark. He might be able to eke out Kerry's numbers there.

    OH? Who know but the latest debacle with his new economic advisor and the unions in revolt over it certainly won't help there nor in MI.

    missouri (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:58:55 AM EST
    Rasmussen released numbers from Missouri and finds Obama edging out McCain 43% to 42%. This is a great trendline for the Democrat, as he trailed by 5% last month and by 15% in March.

    Parent
    This is great? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:02:25 AM EST
    Um, no it's not. Look at Obama's numbers over all. I don't think that he's topped 45% in that state since Rev. Wright showed up.

    Parent
    ok (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:55:15 AM EST
    so you project a loss and I project a win.  I will be sure to repost this win or lose come November...

    Parent
    trend lines are not irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:24:04 AM EST
    what's great is the trend line . . . I'd rather have an upward trend line than a downward one.  And McCain's not above 45% either

    Parent
    What does it tell you (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:25:14 AM EST
    that Hillary Clinton as VP almost always puts him above 50%, but that he can't ever seem to get there himself?

    Parent
    Exactly. (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:27:11 AM EST
    Latest projection on Hominid Views was Hillary winning 325 EV all by herself.

    No "shoring-up" VP necessary.

    Parent

    We are seeing the slow light of ancient stars (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:07:54 AM EST
    when we look at hominid views and electoral map.com.

    The Rasmussens, Quinniapacs, and SUSA polls are from the trailing past, state matchup polls dating from May 19th, May 27th...folks we are not looking at current realities.

    HAVE NOT GOTTEN TO MAY 31st YET.
    The DNCs RBC treatment of HRC is unaccounted for, as yet.

    Parent

    Very good point, (none / 0) (#114)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:10:28 AM EST
    although Hominid Views takes new polls into account, AFAIK.

    Parent
    nope. Rasmussen is slow. (none / 0) (#193)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    like 3 states a day. So both Hominid and e college.com lag. Check the details: dates are latish May.

    Parent
    You're right (none / 0) (#197)
    by Y Knot on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:23:09 PM EST
    Obama's numbers should shoot up at least 5 points in most of these states, now that the primaries are over.

    Good catch.

    Parent

    that's absurd. (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:31:55 AM EST
    McCain will alomst certainly win Missouri.  Obama should be hivering around 50% already with McCain at 40% there.

    Parent
    That's all why (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:16:23 AM EST

    I think that entire map is cr@p.  Sorry, but it just is.  NH won't go for Obama.  They're the northern red state and I know the kind of people there, from Nashua in the south to Lyndesborough up further.  They're conservative.

    Parent
    MO (none / 0) (#2)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:58:12 AM EST
    is closer than you think.  SUSA largest and most recent poll had McCain up by three (within the margin of error).

    Parent
    So? (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:00:58 AM EST
    Is losing by three points now defined as winning? My point being is that if he's already losing and the GOP dumps something then he's guranteed to lose the state.

    Parent
    I'm just left thinking about (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:05:27 AM EST
    how Clinton unravelled on a state by state basis.

    I checked that link to McCain's ad and I was surprised to see it had about 180,000 hits. Qasi Viral ad that's being seen on local TV.

    Under the radar.

    Parent

    I live next door to MO (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:10:13 AM EST
    I would bet my next paycheck Obama will not win MO.

    Parent
    It's hard to tell... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:16:40 AM EST
    ...but right now Obama is cominf off of a wave of good feelings about his winning the primary. He should have a 3-5 point bump everywhere, as Clinton's supporter's rally to him and people decide to go with the "winner". McCain has had nothing really going on, is only marginally campaigning, and has had some nasty press about his treatment of his first wife and comments made about his current wife.

    Being barely within the margin of error right now is not good. Obama should have a solid bump on his pre-Clinton withdrawal numbers. He doesn't. Most of his increased margins are based on McCains numbers dropping. It's possible that people who previously said they'd vote McCain if Clinton dropped out have changed their minds, but we can't know if their intentions will hold as the memory of Clinton's speech fades, or if they will become, once again, reluctant to vote for Obama the next time a scandal or pseudo-scandal hits.

    Parent

    McCains nasty press (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:22:54 AM EST
    this is changing.  this morning on Joe Mickey Mouse Mica, to quote Joe, was shocked, SHOCKED that the Obama campaign was engaging in politics by suggesting McCain was a confused old man.
    her quote was something like this (please imaging vacuous annoying pseudo intellectual valley girl voice)
    "it just seems, um, I dont know, um, CLINTONESQUE"
    the Obama campaign is getting into the weeds with these attacks on McCain and I wonder if that is not just where McCain wants him to be.

    Parent
    As time goes on (none / 0) (#179)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:44:55 AM EST
    The Clinton supporters who accept the Obama nom could easily be disillusioned by what keeps coming out on Obama.


    Parent
    I'm Surprised That Obama Is Doing This (none / 0) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:04:06 AM EST
    well in MO. What poll puts him up by 1 here? Can't imagine the conservative Dems voting for him in the non-Democratic strongholds. Just goes against their normal tendencies.

    Parent
    That's Because (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Blue Jean on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:12:46 AM EST
    KC, St Louis, and to a much lesser extent, Columbia, tend to skew the results.  The two big cities and the small college town are blue islands in a sea of red.

    Whether that holds up now that Matt Blunt and the GOP gang have gotten their claws into voter id remains to be seen.

    Parent

    If Winning St. Louis, KC And Columbia (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:42:21 AM EST
    big were enough to win the state, MO would be a blue state. It is not. Jefferson City is now controlled by Republicans. More often than not the conservative Dem and Indie voters vote for Republicans. To win MO, you have to win St.Louis, KC and Columbia (a given) and win over the conservative Dems. Would be interested in seeing the turn out and distribution models the current polls are using to come up with these percentages.  

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#198)
    by Blue Jean on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:30:16 PM EST
    MO went blue twice for Bill and probably would have done so for HRC,  but the odds are against it for Obama.  He's just too new and the state's too conservative.  I'm just saying that KC, St. Louis's, and Columbia's combined populations are roughly equal to rual MO, and that's what's skewing the polling right now.  I'd be VERY surprised if Obama took MO, and as MO goes, so goes the GE.

    Parent
    I thought Kerry would take (none / 0) (#55)
    by standingup on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:08:42 AM EST
    Boone County (Columbia) in 2004 and he lost.  The governor's race is probably going to be very important here for getting Republican's to the polls.  I wouldn't feel very comfortable about Missouri at any point.  

    Parent
    Eke is the right word (none / 0) (#192)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:52:36 PM EST
    Election night 2004 it was questionable in PA till late. I have a big worry about the Dems holding PA. Hillary is needed there.

    Parent
    Obama has slim (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by DaytonDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:34:46 AM EST
    to no chance of winning Ohio. The NAFTA wink to Canada plus his troubles attracting rural voters dooms him here.

    What effect (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:40:37 AM EST
    do you think the new economic advisor will have there?

    Parent
    I personally (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by DaytonDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:48:10 AM EST
    don't care for Furman, but Krugman has his back . As a practical matter I doubt anyone on his team will help or hurt. Hillary might pull him through, but even that is no sure thing. imho

    Parent
    Thanks for the Krugman link (none / 0) (#43)
    by Nike on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:03:08 AM EST
    Agree with the centrist concern, which also shows up in the Chicago religious meeting earlier this week.

    Parent
    And it's absolute nonsense, (none / 0) (#175)
    by Landulph on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:29:24 AM EST
    as some have alleged, that Sibelius as running mate will help him on iota here. Her dad, John Gilligan, was a one-term governor back in the '70s--no one under the age of 55 remembers him, and no one of any age cares. He somehow managed to lose re-election to Jim Rhodes, of Kent State Massacre infamy--what does that tell you (other than that our state's voters have a long history of odd decisions).

    Parent
    what did Hillary say after winning Ohio after (none / 0) (#191)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:42:28 PM EST
    having been outspent 3:1 by Obama's bottomless money pit?

    As Ohio votes so does the country, IIRC

    so, yeah Obama has quite a steep hill ahead.

    Unless Hillary stumps for him there.

    Parent

    Nate's numbers (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by 1jane on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:40:39 AM EST
    Obama has 5 pt. bounce since Clinton withdrew.

    In WI Obama leads McCain by 13 pts.

    In WA Obama has 18 pt lead.

    In MA Obama has a 23 pt lead.

    Nate is predicting WI and PA could go Obama if his bounce continues.

    Nate calculates Obama's chance of winning at 54.4 on this fine day.

    Whoo-hoo! 54%! (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by goldberry on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:23:44 AM EST
    Hominid Views had Clinton as unbeatable against McCain and Obama can only get to 54%? And that's today before the GOP beast gets hungry and starts playing with its food.  
    He is non-viable and the Democratic "leadership" needs to be kept away from sharp objects.  They are a danger to themselves and others.    


    Parent
    I guarantee (4.66 / 3) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:07:04 AM EST
    Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota go Obama.

    Pennsylvania is a tight race. As is Michigan.

    I am wary of Ohio for Obama.

    Florida is gone.

    Parent

    Sorry BTD- (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by kenosharick on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:18:31 AM EST
    Wisconsin was the closest state in 2004, and rev wright, ect. has sunk Obama in my home state. Everyone seems to be pretending that these vicious 527's and their tens of millions do not exist. They will really hurt him once they get up on the air.

    Parent
    Doesn't seem "sunk" yet. (4.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:33:08 AM EST
    Various polls since the end of the primaries have him up anywhere from 7-13.  If that's sinking, punch some holes in my boat.

    Parent
    Florida was gone when (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:16:47 AM EST
    DNC threw the voters away.  Rules Comm. made matters worse.  So very stupid.

    Parent
    Only time will tell (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:56:11 AM EST
    Iowa, particularly, is reeling right now under the pain of natural disasters. Obama cancelled a planned trip there this week using the reasoning "he didn't want to distract them from the work they had to do". Imagine the points he could have made by going anyway, cancelling his campaign speeches, but touring the area, offering his empathy and calling on FEMA. What he did looks more like a Katrina rerun.


    Parent
    No... (none / 0) (#190)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:37:57 PM EST
    ...the last thing that the people of Iowa need is to be a background from political stumping--by either side.  Unless, the candidate can magically make the rain and twisters stop.  

    Right now they are more worried about getting sand bags filled and in place and keeping the water supply, their homes and possessions safe.  And rightly so.  They don't need FEMA, they don't need empathy--they need Federal disaster funding and they have a compentent Governor to take care of that.  

    Iowans are proud and self-relienat people and don't exactly like outsiders to begin with.  They sure as heck don't like to be used as political props.  

     

    Parent

    Do you think Minnesota would go with Obama (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:09:07 AM EST
    even if Pawlentey is MCCains VP choice?

    Parent
    YES (none / 0) (#108)
    by DFLer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:04:23 AM EST
    Last week on PBS NewsHour (none / 0) (#119)
    by zyx on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:18:12 AM EST
    there were a couple of pollsters talking about the electoral map. They talked about the "new states" that Obama wants to contest--Colorado and Virginia, but conceded, pretty much, that in November we probably will be talking about Ohio and Florida, etc., again.

    Also, they did say there is a quite-possible scenario where Obama wins the popular vote and loses the election.

    Oy!

    Parent

    How could the bounce possibly continue? (none / 0) (#123)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:22:48 AM EST
    The very term "bounce" indicated that the numbers go up as a result of press, and then go down again. If numbers stay up or increase, then it isn't a "bounce", it's a trend. I don't see how Obama's numbers could go much higher than they are barring a complete meltdown by McCain. This is not impossible, but unlikely - he was pretty thoroughly vetted during the Republican primary. There are some outfits out there who really hate him, but they tend to be a bit wacky and they will have the weight of the Republican machine going agaisnt them, not for them. Obama isn't going to increase his numbers by getting his name and face out there. Everybody knows who he is. The rest of the race is about holding onto the votes he has and maybe converting a few in the middle.

    Parent
    one can't overestimate (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by ccpup on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:18:28 AM EST
    the anger or disappointment people feel over the WAY he "won" the Nomination.  

    Celebrating a "winner" who threw the last sitting Democratic President under-the-bus in addition to having the DNC twist the rules to give him what he didn't earn (MI, precisely) may not be sitting well with many people.  In fact, for some it must be an embarrassment that he became our Nominee the way he did.

    Add to that the fact that post-February many more voters chose Clinton over him in an obvious "wait, we've changed our minds and DON'T want that guy after all" effort -- conveniently ignored by the DNC -- and we're looking at the probability of another stinging loss in November.

    Parent

    I guess that's because he *didn't* win (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by goldberry on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:28:59 AM EST
    If FL and MI had been fully counted from the beginning, the race would have been over on SuperTuesday.  No one in their right mind could look at Clinton's wins in FL. MI, CA, NY, NJ, MA as anything but a triumph.  
    Maybe that's why they were deliberately excluded and then only accorded half of the delegates when Obama's inflated wins were just barely enough to give him the edge with the superdelegates.  
    You know, in order for Clintonistas to flock to Obama en masse, you have to believe that they are really as stupid as the Dean Democrats think they are.  You have to assume that they saw the shenanigans of this primary season and will just say, "Well, alright then,nothing shady going on there.  so much for NJ voting early.  Obama it is!"
    Nah Gah Happen.  

    Parent
    certainly not with this Voter (none / 0) (#178)
    by ccpup on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    who will -- for the first time since 1992 -- not vote for the Top of the Ticket.

    If the DNC thinks they can win just fine without my vote, then I wish them the best of luck doing so.

    It just ain't gonna happen.

    Parent

    Talkleft isn't the world (none / 0) (#183)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:03:08 PM EST
    I know that you know that, but when we get involved in a community it is easy to start believing that the norms of that group are the norms everywhere. Talkleft is one of few havens for Clinton supporters on the web, and I think that a lot of people who feel strongly about Clinton but were reluctant to get involved in more Obama hostile sites were drawn here. That would mean that most of us feel more strongly about not voting for Obama than the general public.

    That said, it's going to be very interesting to see what happens to Obama's poll numbers when he doesn't name Clinton as VP, as I am quite sure he won't. If he does, then that will prove that many of my assumptions about him were wrong, and I will seriously consider voting for him. I suspect that his bounce will end on that day. But there is every possibility that we are wrong - that anger toward Bush and the GOP in general will save the day and people will vote for Obama in spite of their misgivings.

    Parent

    I just don't see OH and PA going to Obama (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:55:46 AM EST
    ...unless McCain seems utterly out-of-it. I'm surprised that Obama polls as well in PA as he does.

    Kerry barely won PA--and that was being married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, a pretty-much universally respected figure in PA since the days she was John Heinz's wife.

    If war hero Kerry, married to a PA icon, squeaked out a win here, I don't know how Obama overcomes his 20 year membership to Rev. Wright's church and his "bitter-cling" remarks to defeat  McCain. It's telling that Obama did NOT win Allegheny County in the primary--Pittsburgh and suburbs.

    But stranger things have happened....

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Mrwirez on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:09:42 AM EST
    I just posted this about 7 posts down. I am from Pittsburgh, and Clinton won 61 out of 67 counties. Obama has his work cut out for him. The "T" in PA, which is the rural republican voters will come out hard for McCain. I think Obama may win Allegheny county and definitely win Philadelphia county, but that will probably be it.... Again Clinton would have cleaned McCain's clock here.

    Parent
    Hi neighbor :) (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:46:07 AM EST
    Yep, the T will turn out HUGE for McCain and though Allegheny County will probably go to Obama, I don't think he'll carry it by huge margins.

    The Philly and Pittsburgh suburbs are probably going to go for McCain by much larger margins than a lot of folks would expect.

    I think too many people assume that all educated, upper-middle class folk are warm to Obama. Not so. That may be the case in the Democratic party, but in the general population, a lot of those folks are more inclined to vote for conservatives. This is why the Dems ran so many Blue Dogs in the suburbs in 06.

    Obama is not a Blue Dog.

    Parent

    I think the Philly suburbs (none / 0) (#111)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:05:15 AM EST
    will go for Obama bigger than they went for Kerry. That should make up for being weaker in the west.

    Parent
    He didn't do well in the 'burbs in the primary (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:17:36 AM EST
    And there are a lot of conservatives in the suburbs around Philly and Pittsburgh....so I dunno.

    Also, there seems to have been a real big difference between what the exit polls showed (a big victory for Obama in the Philly burbs) and the results: Clinton winning.

    link

    Parent

    you still lose PA (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by ccpup on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:20:47 AM EST
    if you're losing the rural vote as Kerry did in 2004.

    And Obama has REAL issues with rural voters, yet another Demographic Clinton did extraordinarily well with, but will -- in a heartbeat -- flip to McCain in the General.

    Parent

    That is what I am talking about (none / 0) (#186)
    by Mrwirez on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:09:17 PM EST
    with the blue collar/union labor men. We make over $50,000/year and love the Clintons. With our decent income and benefits and retirement packages, McCain is not that bad of a pick for some guys. They are afraid Obama will cater to the blacks too much and not pay attention to labor problems and or affirmative action. I have had these very discussions with the guys I work with, and therefore will vote for McCain. As a matter of fact, I was extremely surprised how many guy's voted for Clinton in the primary in PA. She really would have smacked McCain in the GE too.

    Parent
    Yep, this is what my cousins have told me (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by goldberry on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:53:43 AM EST
    They're all in Pgh and they were Clintonistas.  They think McCain is going to win big time.  They were no fans of Obama.  
    The amount 0f damage Obama has done to the Democratic brand name can't be underestimated.  I think he has lost a lot of support this election season that will not be coming back until Howard Dean is gone.    

    Parent
    Clinton won PA (none / 0) (#195)
    by r15 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:10:08 PM EST
    in large part because Rendell had the Democratic machine out working for her nonstop. That same machine will be working for Obama in the fall, so he has an excellent chance in PA.

    Parent
    No PA (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Athena on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:19:52 AM EST
    I don't see Obama winning PA.  He was fading by April 22, as revealed by losing Bucks Co. and environs.  PA is not Wisconsin or Iowa.

    Parent
    I agree. n/t (none / 0) (#98)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:47:44 AM EST
    first you have to consider the (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by hellothere on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:24:29 AM EST
    actual polls. are they in the tank like the media? that is a strong consideration. who asked for the poll and paid for it. how good is their history? in my opinion the polls have been almost worthless this whole season. to rely on poll numbers as THE ANSWER is a gamble that can be easily lost. for the obama campaign to assume that this and that is so doesn't fly with me. i don't like polls being used as propoganda. color me very cynical.

    Parent
    Primarys Do Not Equal General Elections... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Mouthful of Politics on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:23:30 AM EST
    It's like comparing apples to oranges. All the recent polling shows Obama picking up virtually all of Clinton's supporters. He even leads among hispanic voters by over 30%; weren't they one of his problem demographics?

    I think he certainly stands a chance in MO. For McCain to win, he has to get large turnout in the "T", and at this point in time, Republican voters just aren't looking terribly enthused. Also, if Obama chooses either McCaskill or Sebelius as his running mate, both conservative, and both local, then his odds increase further.

    Bottom line: Anything is possible, but don't be shocked to see an Obama victory there in November.

    Parent

    I don't think so. (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:28:50 AM EST
    All the recent polling shows Obama picking up virtually all of Clinton's supporters.

    If that were the case, he'd be crushing McCain in the swing states BTD mentioned.

    Parent

    Just wait... (none / 0) (#200)
    by Mouthful of Politics on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:58:27 PM EST
    Those states haven't had recent polling done. The other states mentioned have. The only demographic group he's behind with is white males, which is the norm for every Democrat.

    BTW, Another poll was just released showing Obama within 2 points in North Carolina. Most of the anticipated swing states are looking very blue, and some of the red states are now looking like battlegroudn states.

    Parent

    thwarting republican skullduggery is the key (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by pluege on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:58:56 AM EST
    the dems better figure out what all the republican opportunities are for voter suppression and vote tampering in the 4 key states, as well as any others where Obama isn't polling at least a 5 point lead.

    excuse me, appealing to the base (none / 0) (#129)
    by hellothere on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:25:37 AM EST
    on their way out the front door just might be the key. but let me deter you in your analysis especially since you are enjoying it.

    Parent
    prior to the 2004 election (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:04:20 AM EST
    How many points was Kerry up in OHIO and he ended up losing it?

    Umm, yeah... (none / 0) (#177)
    by phatpay on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:36:38 AM EST
    and nothing funny went down in Ohio.

    Parent
    When it's too late to do anything about (none / 0) (#182)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:00:16 PM EST
    it, I'd love to see such an analysis of TX, WA, IA and all the other caucus states. IN primary would be interesting, as well.

    Parent
    Ohio, New hampshire and Virginia (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Mrwirez on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:04:53 AM EST
    will probably be red. I have doubts about Colorado. In PA there are serious questions about Obama's ability to win here too. He will not get the blue collar/union voters- PERIOD. I work with these guys and they are rejecting Obama. Kerry barely won PA 51-49 in 2004, and NO Offense..... he was white. If Obama does not win at least one of these states FL, OH or PA he will not win the Presidency.

    Btw... I still think Clinton would have won more easily.


    Virginia is in play (4.00 / 1) (#82)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:29:42 AM EST
    Demographics are changing rapidly.  Larger black vote than many other states.  And, let's not forget: they elected a Dem senator two years ago, a Dem governor three years ago, and will elect another Dem senator this year.  Also VA-11 Congress is going to flip to Dem.

    Virginia is in play and both candidates know it.  McCain and the GOP are going to be forced to defend it, which will help Obama out elsewhere.

    Parent

    The GOP may have to defend VA (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:55:44 AM EST
    but they'll win it. Webb barely beat "Macaca" two years ago--and Webb appealed to three key demographic groups: liberals who wanted end GOP rule, the Navy, and Appalachians. McCain will get the Navy and Appalachian vote--and the conservative vote in the suburbs. Certainly not all of the denizens of the DC suburbs are liberal.

    Parent
    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:04:55 AM EST
    I don't buy Virginia for a second. Maybe it's because of my stepmother being involved in local politics there.

    The Republican machine is awfully strong in VA - and don't forget the voting shenanigans. Webb only won after he forced a recount.

    Parent

    there was no recount (none / 0) (#161)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:06:50 AM EST
    And, again, it's not only Webb -- also a Dem governor, and also a popular former Dem governor is heavily favored to win a GOP Senate seat this year.  VA-11 is going to flip to Dem this year, too.

    The Republican machine is awfully strong in VA

    Also, the GOP lost seats in the state House and Senate last time, too.  The GOP machine is not strong in Virginia anymore.

    I live in Virginia. What I see is that Virginia could be in play depending on turnout of Northern Va, Richmond, and Hampton Roads area.

    Parent

    You are right - there was (none / 0) (#164)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:12:43 AM EST
    the threat of a recount.

    We'll see what happens, but Presidential races are not as Party-dependent as Congressional races. I think history bears that out pretty well.

    Parent

    Once again, it's all about Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:23:47 AM EST
    I think this election will hinge on whether Obama can trick McCain into trying to defend NC and VA. He will not be stupid enough to make a play for CA, no matter what his "Strategy Briefing" says.

    Ultimately, I agree with you, this is going to be a close race.

    Agree There (none / 0) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:32:03 AM EST
    As the most recent California poll has Obama up by 17, and that was before Clinton suspended, I think any day McCain spends in California is a total waste of time and money.

    In addition, Obama is up 14 in New York. Unless McCain thinks he has a shot in New Jersey, he can stay completely away from the two largest and most expensive advertising states in the country...how's that for a way to save money in a McCain "less than 50 state strategy".

    Parent

    I think the (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:34:19 AM EST

    electoral map is largely irrelevant right now.  The candidates are just barely throwing down with each other, Obama still breathing heavily after fighting so long with Clinton (and his Obamatrons are STILL harping on and on about the evils of Hillary Clinton all over the place).  Wait until after Denver.  Then we'll see some action.

    Certainly most of the PV nat'l (none / 0) (#147)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:47:57 AM EST
    polls are mostly meaningless or at least misleading if taken either in isolation or too much to heart one way or the other.

    Traditionally if a party has been in power for several terms and if the economy is not in good shape, voters will vote change.  Period.  No matter the NS issues at play or how long the incumbent party's nominee acted heroically in an enemy pow camp.

    Doubly true if the incumbent party's prez is an unliked incompetent with approval ratings in the dumpster.

    PA, OH and possibly MO will go Blue this year.  I have no worries about IA, WI, MN and MI.  NM and maybe CO will be icing on the cake.

    Parent

    true, but . . . (none / 0) (#162)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:07:59 AM EST
    even though they don't mean a whole lot, I'd still rather be ahead at this point than behind.

    Parent
    Connecticut in play? (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by HenryFTP on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:38:25 AM EST
    I read this map and my jaw dropped -- the GOP has lost all but one of the House seats in CT and even Chris Shays, the Congressman for Greenwich and Darien, is in trouble. If I were McCain, I'd welcome Obama to spend time in North Carolina while I was getting plenty of free New York national media while campaigning in New Jersey and Connecticut.

    The Obama guys can talk 50-state strategy all they like but if they lose Ohio they're in the deep yogurt. They're doing none too well in Wisconsin and Michigan, too, although maybe the Wisconsin polling data used for the map is an outlier. I also think the GOP won't bother using McCain to shore up the Deep South base -- they'll use more reassuring surrogates and anti-Obama propaganda there, and throw in some Navy photo ops of McCain in Tidewater Virginia at Newport News Shipbuilding. It worked for them in 1988, and it should be enough this time around.

    It would be dumb for McCain to waste money advertising on DC television when the DC media gives him so much free favorable TV. If you keep thinking McCain is Bush, you're making a big mistake -- he still has favorable perceptions running for him even if the reality of his positions is very different. After all, that was just as true in 2000.

    Although I wouldn't begin to suggest that I understand the complexities of Missouri politics, the rest of the map starkly tells me that the general election is going to be fought over a lot of the people who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. I think it's great if we can get Colorado trending blue, but not at the expense of losing the heart of Democratic Electoral College majorities -- New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois, with Missouri solidly in play.

    Why complicate things when this should be simple? Win these states, you've won the election. Do that, and you can worry about realigning the country in 2012.

    Wisconsin? (none / 0) (#154)
    by Mouthful of Politics on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:56:28 AM EST
    The latest poll shows Obama up by 13 in Wisconsin. Not even close.

    All the recent national polling and state polling also suggests Obama is already picking up the majority of Democratic support. You can expect his margins in PA and OH to have received a similar bump once new polling data is released.

    Don't underestimate the ability of Democrats to come together in a year like this. It may have been a contentious Primary, but the differences between Obama and McCain are enormous, and in reality, McCain will pick up few of Clinton's supporters.

    With the exception of white males, which is the norm, every demographic is now trending toward Obama, and in the same or greater numbers than they were for Clinton. He leads with women by the same margin as Clinton did now, and his lead among hispanics is currently over 30%, as McCain is getting just 28% of hispanic support.

    I also think he stands a real chance in places like Virginia if Democratic turnout is as enthusiastic as expected. McCain will have to defend Virginia, and other close races, or he could easily lose them.

    Parent

    You have now made the claim (none / 0) (#157)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:02:49 AM EST
    that Obama is picking up virtually all of HRC's supporters several times.

    I have yet to see one link in support of this statement.

    Do you realize how huge Obama's margins of victory would be in the swing states if that were true?

    Parent

    oh, you know how this goes (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by ccpup on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:26:06 AM EST
    if you repeat something often enough and loud enough, it'll eventually be true.  Or at least low-information Voters will believe it's true.  Or something.

    Are we going to have to send you another "Guide to How To Think Like Obama" with your monthly shipment of Kool-Aid?

    Sheesh!

    :-)

    Parent

    Funny, isn't it (none / 0) (#184)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:03:18 PM EST
    The growth of Clinton supporters organizing into protest groups hasn't even started to show the impact they might be able to have on the election.


    Parent
    Check This Link for the Polling Data... (none / 0) (#202)
    by Mouthful of Politics on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:19:56 PM EST
    http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/poll_obama_leads_mccain_domina.php

    From this article:

    More importantly, Obama is ahead with key demographics where his electability had previously been questioned. Obama leads among women 52%-33%, with Catholics 47%-40%, among independents 41%-36%, and even 47%-42% with blue-collar workers.

    And contrary to the idea that his poor primary performances among Hispanics reflected an electability problem, he now leads 62%-28% with that group -- well ahead of John Kerry's 53%-44% advantage in 2004.

    John McCain's big advantage is with white men, where he leads 55%-35% -- the only reason the race is as close as it is, according to the pollster's analysis.

    Those numbers show him now with virtually the same support she had before she left the race. Most of her supporters seem to be getting firmly behind him.

    This is very good news for Democrats. Of course, there will always be a few sour grapes.

    Parent

    Not only is it close... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by goldberry on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:38:42 AM EST
    ...but it depends on all of the Democratic party getting in line.  That is a big assumption and at this point, I think it is wishful thinking.  Even having Clinton leave the race wasn't enough for the Dean Democrats.  They still haven't made any attempts to win the Clintonistas back.  They just assume we'll all fall in line.  
    I see no evidence that would justify this confidence.  In fact, I see this split solidifying.  
    Whnn 20 of my Democratic relatives in PA were asked recently who would win in the fall, the overwhelming majority said McCain.  
    Make no mistake about it, Obama is going to have a CERY steep hill to climb in OH and PA.  The loyal Democratic base there really doesn't like him.  Not even a little.

    They claim they are unified (none / 0) (#188)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:12:24 PM EST
    This morning's article on MSNBC online makes some very bold statements about how women have no choice but to vote for Obama. These people clearly don't understand the women who are not falling in line.

    "We're not running against Hillary Clinton any longer, and that's not the choice women have to make," she said yesterday. "They're choosing between two candidates who have dramatically different records on women's issues, neither of whom are a woman."


    Parent
    I'm actually stunned (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by smott on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    ...by the 5-pt lead in PA. I wonder how the polls are weighting the Philly area vs my areas here in Pgh. I"m sure Obama will be strong East, get creamed Central, and West will be the decider...But we're pretty white/euro-ethnic/catholic/working class in this area, so we'll see. HRC would have creamed McCain here, but I don't know about Obama.

    So many of us typical white women who are bitter, or clinging, or...whatever....

    And how many points was Dukakis ahead? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by smott on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:47:57 AM EST
    Like 17 pts in Aug-Sep?
    And one Snoopy-in-the-tank photo and that was it.

    Good thing Obama isn't gaffe-prone.

    Potential for a Landslide? (4.50 / 2) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:49:08 AM EST
    Interesting to me is in those key states, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri...In the most recent poll out of each state Obama leads all of them. I am of the mind that this may be a large smackdown before it's done, with Obama in the 330 range or higher.

    After seeing Michigan tip towards Obama in the latest poll, I look forward to seeing the long term effect of no revote in Florida in their next poll. I suspect the backlash in Florida may be a bit stronger than in Michigan and an Obama/Hillary poll in Florida could be quite helpful to see if that combination puts Florida back in play.

    Taking just the most recent poll from each state, Obama leads in EV 328-210.

    Clinton suspended recently. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:58:43 AM EST
    There will be a bump from that, but how long that will last is uncertain.

    Parent
    Yeah, um... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:25:41 AM EST
    I think this figure is a bit more realistic than 324 EV for Obama.

    A 277-vote squeaker is optimistic too. Wait till the August swiftboating starts.

    Parent

    The assumption seems to be... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:25:40 AM EST
    ...that the recent incrases aren't a "bump" or a "bounce", but are a trend that will continue to increase Obama's popularity as he finds the people who have been hiding under rocks for the past 6 months and explains who he is, thus convincing them to support him, as well as winning over all of those fundamantalists and disaffected Republicans who have been looking for an excuse to vote Democratic this election cycle.

    Parent
    This strategy is so wrong-headed. (none / 0) (#140)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    I mean, why not go after the Democratic base? That's where the real electoral prize lies.

    But Obama has never been about that. He's always been about kicking the "bubbas" to the curb. So, he is trying to get the Republicans instead.

    Sorry if I just can't get excited over a candidate whose mission is to infuse the Democratic Party with evangelicals and disaffected Republicans.

    Parent

    I disagree with you BTD (2.00 / 1) (#15)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:14:27 AM EST
    I don't think this is going to be a particularly close race.  I think that Obama will win handily.

    McCain has been given a free pass for the past 3 months while Obama was engaged in a tough fight with Hillary.  Lots of negative stuff came out about Obama.  McCain spent most of his time chatting with the media and going to fund raising dinners.

    Right now McCain needs to be winning.   The country is swinging towards the Democrats.  That is the momentum.  And barring a massive catastrophe or a major scandal against Obama, there isn't much McCain can do about this.  

    I predict Obama gets about 330 EV when it's all said and done.

    The different view is (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:21:11 AM EST
    based on how the media interacted with the Dem primary.

    Without a Clinton to "pile on" on, they will be forced to divide more time.

    Example: When talking about Obama's many associations, the media was inclined to push that back on Clinton and accuse her of "going negative."

    When running against McCain, what will they do?

    I guess we're going to find out.

    What I do think is important is that, with Obama, we find ourselves more at the whim of the media.

    Parent

    Right now. (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:28:20 AM EST
    My take is that Obama versus McCain is going to be a contest to see who can discredit the other side in order to poach voters from them.

    I prefer two candidates competing to see who can do the most for the country and its citizens, but it doesn't seem to be trending that way.

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:32:11 AM EST
    In the contest you describe, the "discredit contest," you are left to the whims of the media to taka a side and drive the character attack memes.

    In the second contest you describe, the media is less powerful to make a determination.

    Parent

    Issues are the High Road. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:50:18 AM EST
    Image attacks are the Low Road.

    I don't expect any politician to be Polly Pureheart, but I do expect them to tell me why I should vote FOR them, not just why their opponent is a lying, no goodnik, sleazy pol who doesn't deserve my vote.

    In other words - what do you plan on doing when you get into office?  Dishing dirt doesn't do that.

    Parent

    when was the last time that happened? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:58:21 AM EST
    I would love to see policy only campaigns.  The last president that campaigned and debated policy extremely well was Bill C in my opinion and even those elections were fraught with attack advertising. I am not sure if Willie Horton was the start of it all, but it sure does stick with me as the turning point.

    Parent
    Its earlier than Willie Horton (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:03:34 AM EST
    Check out this 1964 LBJ commercial called confessions of a Republican.

    If you have time check out presidential election commercials from the beginning of TV

    Parent

    thanks molly (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:04:52 AM EST
    will do.

    Parent
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#60)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:14:38 AM EST
    I wasn't able to play the commercial this time. But the transcript is there and readable. Imagine a nervous (like an alcoholic needing a drink bad) Republican trying to lite a cigarette explaining why Goldwater makes him nervous and how he has always voted republican before.

    Hopefully it will be working again soon.

    Parent

    Lest we forget (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:04:08 AM EST
    Willie Horton was a slimy, racist attack, but the ad was ostensibly about an issue - Dukakis' prison furlough program in Massachusetts.

    Parent
    I am realistic. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:02:24 AM EST
    But I think part of the Obama/Clinton divide was the image/issues divide.  Images can be ephemeral, issues have more staying power.  IMO image is shallow, issues are deep.  

    Parent
    I think it is the reverse. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:07:13 AM EST
    borad issues build the party, but images win elections.

    Parent
    It's about branding. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:13:41 AM EST
    I want a solid Democratic brand and I think the Democratic presidential candidate should represent that brand, own that brand, love that brand.

    That means supporting progressive principles, ideals and issues.   I expected Obama to run to the right, but I never expected him to run to The Right!

    In the words of the immortal Charlie Brown "AUGH!".

    Parent

    Obama Will Not Be Running Under The (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:28:19 AM EST
    Democratic brand. He has IMO run under the Obama brand during the primary and he will continue to do so during the GE. I don't see much difference between the Obama brand and the proposed Unity08 party. Based on this week emphasis on courting the fundies, it will be interesting (though depressing to me) to see how much farther he goes right he goes on other issues that are important to me.  

    Parent
    I know, I know. (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:38:38 AM EST
    The only feeling Obama inspires in me is deep cynicism.  

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:07:19 AM EST
    I'm already tired of the negative stuff (on both sides)and we have just started.  

    We need high turnout, and this is not the way to get it.

    Parent

    In the primaries (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:20:50 AM EST
    high turnout worked against Obama. Are you sure high turnout would favor him in the general? What issues are likely to be on the ballot that might energize one group or the other?  As someone who no longer has a horse in the race, what might get me to the polls? Even my down ticket dems are safe in their seats so I can stay home, but there are things that would make me put my coat on.

    Parent
    limbaugh said yesterday that (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:03:54 AM EST
    this election has little to do with McCain and will instead be a referendum on Barack Obama. It's all going to come down to whether people are for Obama or against him. McCain, Limbaugh says, is not going to have people passionately for him. Instead, he'll be the default, anti-Obama choice.

    Now, Limbaugh has long hated McCain because McCain wouldn't play along with the script. But he has a point. And when I heard him say this, it reminded me of what Pat and Bay Buchanan and other conservative commentators have said: this is all about Obama. Can we have him be the President?

    This suggests that this GOP campaign is at some point going to turn very, very, very ugly. They are going to define Obama as a radical, out-of-the-mainstream, Scary Guy. Unfortunately, Obama has provided them with lots of ammo to use against him both in his associations and in his books, which are wonderfully reflective pieces of literature which contain ideas that, lifted out of context, will scare the hell out of the suburbanites.

    They're going to hammer his lack of experience, his radical associations, his judgment, his character. In the end, this is going to be an election that goes to the last man standing.

    I'm queasy thinking about it.

    Parent

    but, wait: (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:15:55 AM EST
    wasn't that the reason we couldn't have Clinton? Cos she'd bring Rethugs out in droves to vote against her?

    Plus ca change...

    Parent

    That was always (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:23:21 AM EST
    one of the dumbest arguments evah.

    Whatever faults the GOP has, and they are legion, their GOTV efforts are incredibly effective. I think we can safely assume that the GOP would be energized against ANY Democrat, since they, you know, ALWAYS ARE.

    Parent

    Yep. So much for that argument. (none / 0) (#120)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:19:19 AM EST
    exactly (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by ccpup on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:31:50 AM EST
    and Barack will hem and haw and "um" and "ugh" his way through his responses to these attacks.  Or direct you to the website he's recently set up to answer the smears.

    As if anyone is going to "go to the website" in order to figure out if the water-cooler chat about the latest Obama Revelation is right or not.

    And THIS is who the DNC thought would run a strong campaign against the Republican Attack Machine which took down a sitting VP and then a veritable War Hero?  Move over 'cause you got one more joining you in the SS Queasy.

    As soon as I crawl out from underneath this damn bus, of course.  

    Does Tide with Bleach work on tire marks?

    Parent

    On the Contrary (none / 0) (#141)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:41:36 AM EST
    This election won't be about Obama's greatness or McCain's oldness. It will be about Bush, and the GOP that supported his disastrous presidency. That is what will lead to a DEM landslide.

    The trend lines are unmistakable. Clinton would have benefited from the same national mood, instead it will be Obama in an eventual cakewalk. The national mood is turning the map blue.

    Parent

    No, no, no. (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    You can't run against Bush. Only Bush is Bush, and guess what? He ain't coming back no matter who wins. (Thank Jeebus!!)

    Obama has to make an affirmative argument as to why we should vote FOR HIM. That's what John Kerry failed to do, and that's why he lost. Bush basically said, "Vote for me or die," which in its own sick way, was an affirmative argument.

    As for the McBush or McSame lines of attack, I used to think they would be effective too, but they are policy-based arguments; and as we know, Obama doesn't do policy, he does character and story.

    So let's see. Everyone knows McCain and Bush hate each other and have hated each other since 2000. McCain's war hero-ness, "maverick" reputation and years of experience show very well that character-wise, he is not Bush, despite his agreement with Bush's policies (which are standard Republican dogma now).

    The more I hear about Obama's strategy to "win" in November, the more despair I feel about our chances.

    Parent

    Of course Obama will run (none / 0) (#156)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:00:08 AM EST
    against Bush.  His most effective message besides Change has been McCain = Bush's 3d term.

    It's going to be an election about whether people want to endorse the incumbent Repub party with another 4 yrs of the same.  That's just basic Politics 101.

    Even McCain understands this.  Which is why he's been trying to carefully find ways to put some distance betw himself and Junior, and why he is trying (desperately and with little credibility) to say that He Too Stands for Change.  

    Heheh.

    Parent

    "Basic Politics 101?" (none / 0) (#158)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:05:14 AM EST
    LOL!

    So Kerry won by running against Bush, then?

    Parent

    A few points to consider: (none / 0) (#163)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:11:36 AM EST
    1. Kerry hardly waged a tough fight against Junior -- recall the word went out starting with the convention and earlier not to go after Bush too hard lest the "swings" be offended -- this was the sort of nonsense advice Kerry's pollsters were giving him.

    2. Bush was only a one-term incumbent in 2004.  Elections which clearly turn on the performance of the incumbent party in the WH involve 2 terms or more.

    3. Almost certainly Rove and Blackwell stole it in OH in2004 (and padded their PV totals in other states).  But our side was incompetent and naive in figgerin' out the various ways Rs would steal yet another election.  Typical Klueless Kerry.  


    Parent
    And do you think (none / 0) (#165)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:15:36 AM EST
    ignoring possible electoral problems in swing states is a strategic improvement?

    Parent
    I don't see any "ignoring" (none / 0) (#180)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:45:40 AM EST
    but instead a fair effort to shore up his deficiencies with certain segments in those states.  

    And the continuing news about the Republican Recession -- with voters seeing gas prices rise daily and home values plummet daily and unemployment going up alarmingly -- will be the most influential factor as some of these currently disaffected or lukewarm Dems begin to come back to the fold.

    Sorry, but the major traditional indicia for electoral outcomes strongly suggest that your guy McCain is in big trouble come November.

    And it would be helpful for your candidate if he could stop making daily or weekly gaffes of a fair size -- though I think McCain is incapable of stopping himself.

    Parent

    the national map will not be blue in November (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:09:27 PM EST
    It won't be because voters who are disgusted with Bush will see Reverend Wright, Ayers, Pfleger, Michelle, out-of-context quotes from Dreams From My Father, etc. etc. etc. and conclude that things are screwed up, but they can't vote for a radical who seems to have a problem with white folks. Fair or not, that's the image of Obama that will dominate come November.

    McCain's "maverick" status, fair or not, will give him enough separation from Bush and movement conservatism that he will be the "safe" choice and will win all but the urban areas. The map is going to look like it did in 04--only redder.

    Parent

    I Know Nothing About Polling (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by daring grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:52:39 AM EST
    and electoral projections etc.

    But it's interesting you say this, because in the last week several numbers crunchers/pundits have had this opinion--that far from being the kind of nail biter election night of the past two presidential cycles, it is probably going to be a blowout.

    Except they weren't sure which way--either could end up winning or losing big.

    Parent

    maybe THATs the reason the media (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:22:00 AM EST
    couldn't wait to get Clinton out: her 100%* chances of beating McCain would make for dull and unprofitable election season coverage.

    This way, its a nailbiter.

    *See Hominidviews polling summaries: Clinton's swing state blowouts had trounced McCain since PA.

    Parent

    Not Nail Biter (none / 0) (#142)
    by daring grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:41:37 AM EST
    Actually what the commentators I referred to were predicting was a NON nail biter election night--that one way or the other the winner would win resoundingly.

    It's a long time till November. Time will tell.

    Parent

    ...and you don't think viewers would tune in to (none / 0) (#194)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    find out WHICH way the resounding win would go?????

    Parent
    Wow, if hope was a dream... (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:27:58 AM EST

    ...you'd be in wonderland.  

    You greatly underestimate p*ssed off voters and GREATLY overestimate Obama.

    Parent

    Hindsight (none / 0) (#3)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:58:16 AM EST
    Your analysis makes sense, and we've had bad results in so many Presidential elections that in my gut I feel this will be at best a close one for our side.

    Still, I suppose Obama could win by a decisive margin (a landslide in today's parlance-- though certainly nothing like '64 or '72).

    Whatever happens, despite our uncertainty and doubt today, the eventual result will be conferred with a retrospective glow of inevitability.

    nicely said (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:59:44 AM EST
    BTD (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:59:43 AM EST
    You almost sound like Rahm talking to Dean.


    Amazing (none / 0) (#8)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:01:39 AM EST
    That it can be that close. With an unpopular war unpopular president, and the economy in the tank, this election should be a Democratic landslide. Hopefully as the campaigns get into full swing the spread will increase. But I don't see Obama taking CO or VA. These are both strong military states and McCain will own the military vote.

    There's always the Veep selection (none / 0) (#42)
    by Lahdee on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:02:46 AM EST
    BO could select to bolster his leadership creds or he could select to the politics of the GE. Hmm, Ohio, PA and MI, wonder who could improve the ticket's changes there?

    Parent
    Colorado is not a strong... (none / 0) (#73)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:24:23 AM EST
    ...military state.  It has one city (Colorado Springs) that is, but the rest of state not so much.  

    Colorado Springs does not swing elections.  If it did, we would have two R senators and a R governor.  

    We are very much a purple state and it will be a very interesting election, but in the end, I believe we will continue to trend D.

    Parent

    No, not all military (none / 0) (#127)
    by zyx on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:23:50 AM EST
    but it has all those ranchers in the east, and in many parts, there are a lot of Mormons. And maybe some McCain-leaning Hispanics. And I dare say a good many Libertarian oddballs.

    Quite a mix.

    Parent

    Again... (none / 0) (#133)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:33:28 AM EST
    ...these groups do not swing elections in the Centennial state.  It is the front range metroplex that decides elections here.  

    If JSC3 can't draw more than 200 people to a fund raiser in Denver, it doesn't bode well for his chances.  

    And, here more than most places, Bob Barr is going to take a lot of votes away from McBBQ.

    Parent

    see my comment above re: Virginia (none / 0) (#83)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:31:23 AM EST
    Virginia is most definitely in play.  (That's not to say a definite win for Obama, but that he is very competitive there, and will cost the GOP a lot to defend it).

    Parent
    These are all states (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:04:58 AM EST
    where an extremely higher than normal African-American turnout can make a big difference. The other side of the coin is that the Republicans have made great strides in the area of voter suppression.  How many of these states have new 'photo ID required for voting' laws, and other tactics?  That will be key, IMHO.

    These are also states where (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jimotto on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:12:59 AM EST
    there's alot of eligible but unregistered voters (18-25 year olds and african americans).  The potential is there to add 2 points or more to the totals by registering the young vote.

    An impressive number I've heard from NC is that Obama volunteers registered roughly 80,000 people in the two months before the primary, and over 60% turned out.  So 3% of the voters in the primary were registered in the two months by Obama volunteers.  And now we have 5 months to try to quadruple that number for the general.  

    Parent

    Voter suppression (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Coral on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:37:06 AM EST
    Especially in places like St. Louis, and Ohio generally, and Florida, is a real problem for Democrats.

    This should be one of the first thing to address if the Democrats win both Congress and the presidency in November.

    The inequity in lines, polling places, and voting machines and paper trails is a national embarrassment and tends to skew swing states Republican in years with large African American turnout.

    Parent

    Photo ID, all kidding aside (none / 0) (#62)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:16:39 AM EST
    Who doesn't have a photo ID??  It amazes me that that would be a burden.  There are licenses, seniro ID's, student ID's etc.  

    Parent
    Not everyone drives. (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:27:07 AM EST
    My daughter went to a college without photo ids.  Many elderly people have no id. I think it's a bigger problem than you think. A person living in the city without a car and no school affiliation would have little reason to have a photo id.

    Parent
    many poor folks without a license.. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:33:01 AM EST
    ... do not have a photo ID.  The inner city poor (who get around on buses) and many senior citizens.

    You know, the folks that usually vote Dem.

    Parent

    ID and current addresses (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by DFLer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:45:48 AM EST
    That's the problem. Student ids don't work, (depending on states' laws) if they don't reflect residence on voting day.

    Parent
    Getting a photo ID (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:58:11 AM EST
    ...can be a burden. In NY you can get a nondriver ID, but it means a trip to the DMV and it costs. Yes, the cost is small, but if you're poor it can be hard to come up with even a few dollars (I've ben there!), and can be hard to get time for the trip to the DMV (ditto). (Not even getting into what that might be like for someone who's very old or disabled.)

    Parent
    ID'S (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:55:02 AM EST
    Maybe Obama should set a certain percentage of his Ad budget aside for the GOTV people to use to organize bus trips to facilities to get the people that don't have proper ID's set up with them. That might be more cost effective than billboards and flyers.

    Parent
    I agree with the site (none / 0) (#12)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:07:03 AM EST
    Now that they have moved IN from "tie."

     But of course they were hopelessly optimistic for some time now.

    A fair number (none / 0) (#13)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:09:04 AM EST
    of states on our side are either barely Democratic or weak Democratic.  They have no barely Republican states, though they do have a decided number of weak Republican states.  Frankly, I will be content with 270.  George W. Bush taught me a lot about the power an electoral vote.

    OH, PA, MI, MO (none / 0) (#16)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:15:52 AM EST
    OH, MI, PA - All Rust Belt States with similar demographics.

    MO - ?
    Sorry, I don't know that region.

    Interesting.  I'll have to keep an eye on regional Rust Belt news to see what happens.  OH & MI have been hit hard by the mortgage mess.  All three have job/economy problems, not just a "downturn" but long term and getting worse.  

    If you can convince those three states that you have what it takes on The Economy, you should be able to convince other states as well.  (Excepting the big Ag states.  We have plenty of Ag here, but it's a smaller part of the economy.)

    Are you seeing McCain ads (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:36:02 AM EST
    on local television?  I am.  My local television market hits southern Ohio, southern West Virginia, and eastern Kentucky.  There's a (in my opinion very effective, unfortunately) McCain ad running regularly during those hours, and during the local news.  

    Parent
    Yeah, (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:39:37 AM EST
    hate to say it but that is a great ad.

    Parent
    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:45:36 AM EST
    That's about as simple and to the point as you can get.

    It's not to my taste though.  I'm one of those Economy/Jobs types.

    Parent

    OMG... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:17:28 AM EST
    I don't even like McCain (that's putting it mildly) and that ad made me cry.

    Obama does not have a prayer on the National Security issue against McCain. He'd better boost up his economic creds right quick and try to reframe National Security as an economic issue. Bring in how McCain admitted he knows very little about the economy.

    That's what Hillary would do.

    Parent

    What Would HIllary Do? (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:44:22 AM EST
    I've been trying to think of a good button that won't PO people.  I want them to be intrigued, to think, to use the ol' grey matter.

    What Would Hillary Do? is almost perfect.  Great idea!

    Parent

    Hee hee hee... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:55:15 AM EST
    that's cool! :-)

    Parent
    She would have predicted this McCain ad and would (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:34:50 AM EST
    pre-empt it by running a "with Hillary,you will be as safe as you were when mommy had you tucked up in bed..."

    Completely safe.

    Because, finally, a grown up is in the White House. Looking after you.

    Oh, wait. She did. She did run that ad.
    Maybe that's why she had a 100% chance at winning. Because she could see what would be coming out up ahead from McCain...

    Parent

    Very good ad (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:21:55 AM EST
    and especially offsets Dem spin that McCain will keep us in Iraq for 100 years.

    Parent
    If I were a Dem operative (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by smott on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:41:46 AM EST
    I would take that (yes very effective ad) and intersplice every remark he makes, with a remark to the opposite he's made, such as the 'bombbomb iran" and 100 years in iraq and anything else I could dig up.

    I think that would work.

    Parent

    Or... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:58:38 AM EST
    ...you could look at it as GE desperation on Iraq.

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:21:55 AM EST
    But calling it "desperation" implies that it won't work, because everyone knows that McCain is a warmonger.  I don't think that's true, and the ad strikes me as a strong attempt to brand himself as something else.

    You could argue that calling it "desperate" is, itself, sort of desperate :)

    Parent

    Sorry but too many people (none / 0) (#136)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:37:26 AM EST
    are fed up with war, with Iraq and Afghanistan and with Bush, who will be joined at the hip successfully with McCain.

    And that ad tends to remind people of their war fatigue, and how McCain, for all his blather about hating war, voted for it and wants to continue it for years to come, and seems indifferent about withdrawing US troops.

    It's the Economy, stupid.

    And it's the Change, stupid.

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:48:37 AM EST
    I'm not as smart as you, so I can't make those sorts of guarantees.

    Parent
    Pure jingoism. n/t (none / 0) (#80)
    by wurman on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:29:08 AM EST
    post-1984... (none / 0) (#19)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:29:58 AM EST
    ...a win by a non-incumbent by 8 to 10 points would certainly qualify as a landslide victory.
    4 points or less is relatively close, and a 5-7 point win is a big win but not necessarily a landslide.  We haven't had a non-incumbent blow out another non-incumbent since, what, 1952?

    A win by 8 points or more would likely also mean picking up 2-3 dozen House seats and narrowly acquiring a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  

    Electoral votes (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:40:20 AM EST
    Yes, but... (none / 0) (#95)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:45:00 AM EST
    ...a popular vote win by anything more than 4 points is likely to mean a corresponding landslide in the Electoral College.

    Parent
    Wisconsin should become bluer (none / 0) (#34)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:53:11 AM EST
    Highlights from a press release about a  poll taken by U of WI

    ...survey taken immediately after Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign, Barack Obama leads John McCain by a 13-percentage point margin in the Badger state.

    ...It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

    Consistent with evidence from other national surveys, the study paints a picture of a hostile political environment in the swing state of Wisconsin for Republicans in 2008. Eight in 10 Wisconsin voters think the country is going in the wrong direction, President George W. Bush has a favorability rating of only 30 percent, 66 percent believe that the war in Iraq was not worth fighting, and the top two issue concerns are the economy and getting U.S. soldiers out of Iraq.

    ...Goldstein points out, "In both 2000 and 2004, party attachments in the state were virtually identical with equal numbers of voters identifying with the Democrats and the GOP. One of the striking results in this poll and consistent with other survey work I have done in the state, the Democrats now enjoy a major advantage in party identification." In the study, 38 percent of probable voters identified with the Democrats and 24 percent with Republicans.

    Obama has very strong favorable ratings with 64 percent of Wisconsin probable voters saying they have a favorable opinion and 32 percent having an unfavorable opinion. ...Obama is seen as the candidate to bring about change (70 percent to McCain's 42 percent) while McCain is seen as the experienced candidate (84 percent to Obama's 43 percent). Still, as the evidence shows, McCain faces a stiff headwind in Wisconsin

    ... Among independents, Obama holds a nine-point lead, 46 percent to 37 percent for McCain with 17 percent undecided.

    ...Despite widespread speculation about lingering divisions within both parties, there is little evidence of it in the poll. Democrats with favorable views of Hillary Clinton were as favorable towards Obama, and as likely to vote for him, as were those less supportive of Clinton.



    Wisconisn, Iowa, Minnesota (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:05:34 AM EST
    are all safe. Not battlegrounds at all.

    Parent
    No Offense (none / 0) (#61)
    by Mrwirez on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:14:55 AM EST
    but combined that is only 27 electoral votes. Are you sure about Iowa?? That is always red.

    Parent
    How do you figure... (none / 0) (#88)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:35:56 AM EST
    ...with Iowa "always" being red?  It's surely not the Democratic Governor, the D controlled legislature or the D Senator. From '88 to '00, Iowans voted Democratic in the Presidential race.  

    Parent
    yes you are right (none / 0) (#94)
    by Mrwirez on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:44:45 AM EST
    I was looking at 2004 maps. Sorry

    Parent
    No problem (none / 0) (#100)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:49:45 AM EST
    Also, in '04 Bush won the state 50 to 49, so even that was pretty much a toss-up.  

    Parent
    sorry- these will all be VERY close (none / 0) (#69)
    by kenosharick on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:23:11 AM EST
    McCain will probably pull out Wis and Iowa- and if McCain picks Pawlenty as Veep, there goes Minn as well. Huge areas of these states are very conservative.

    Parent
    Obama is magic in Iowa (none / 0) (#74)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:24:34 AM EST
    I doubt McCain will be able to contest it.

    Parent
    Iowa is Safely Blue (none / 0) (#109)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:04:48 AM EST
    With McCain losing to Obama in 16 straight polls in Iowa (Obama up by 7, a gain of 5 pts in the most recent Rasmussne poll), it would take the proverbial live boy or dead girl in Obama's closet to give McCain even a slim chance in Iowa.

    Parent
    Huge areas... (none / 0) (#92)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:40:26 AM EST
    ...with little population.  Pawlenty isn't going to help McCain win Minnesota.  He probably couldn't even get elected dog-catcher there after the bridge collapse.  He is not very popular with any Minnesotans that I know.  

    McCain doesn't have a chance in Iowa either.  

    Parent

    Disagree re Pawlenty (none / 0) (#103)
    by DFLer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:56:15 AM EST
    First of all, despite the guv having fairly high personal ratings here, 1. he's never been elected by a majority, only plurality (43% last time) 2. Didn't even bring in state GOP for McCain in primary (went Romney) 3. As the state infrastructure is currently melting all round us, he's in trouble regarding Dept of Trans issues and mistakes....Dems can definitely play the bridge card.

    Besides, Obama has big support here, cutting across all demographics....don't see it going red 't all

    Parent

    response to kenosharick (none / 0) (#104)
    by DFLer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:58:06 AM EST
    no milehi

    Parent
    I hear that (none / 0) (#37)
    by Lahdee on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:56:49 AM EST
    undecided is running well in Michigan. Undecided for Veep!

    big 3 (none / 0) (#52)
    by Tim V on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:07:08 AM EST
    The big three of MI, OH, and PA will likely decide this race. Obama should have the edge in PA but MI and OH could go either way. Whoever wins 2 out of 3 is most likely the winner.

    Obama should run as if it is a close race... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:19:43 AM EST
    ...regardless of whether it is or not.  

    At the moment I am not too worried.  Obama is doing well in the polls and more importantly McCain's support hasn't improved at all since he became the presumptive nominee a few months ago.   If I were a Republican that would trouble me a great deal.  

    McCain... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:29:36 AM EST
    ... just isn't going to win this race by getting people excited about John McCain. He can only win by convincing them they can't live with Obama. It's always possible that more Rev. Wright-type troubles will appear and do that for him, but otherwise, it would require a concerted attack of the Atwater/Rove variety, and I'm not really sure if McCain's camp contains people of that degree of focus and ruthlessness. So at the moment, I'd say things are looking good for Obama, even though he's got no shortage of vulnerabilities to attack.

    Parent
    McCain is quite ruthless... (none / 0) (#89)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:36:03 AM EST
    and he has taken every opportunity to pounce on Obama's gaffes. You will see the 527 attack machine going 24-7 after the nominee is chosen at the Convention.

    You're right, McCain is not an exciting candidate. He is a "safe" candidate. He knows this, and he is trying to play to his strengths. If people don't trust Obama over McCain in November, Obama will not win.

    Parent

    Gee, you don't think McCain (none / 0) (#144)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:41:52 AM EST
    has been a gaffe machine lately, especially in an area that should be his strength, nat'l security?

    In that sense, given that he can't even get out of his own clumsy way on basic, simple FP matters and competent CinC perceptions, McCain is most definitely not a "safe" candidate.

    Advantage Dems in a major Dem year.

    Parent

    What I think (none / 0) (#155)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:58:47 AM EST
    hardly reflects the general views of McCain, unfortunately. :-) He is certainly a gaffe machine (Sunni, Shi'a, whatevah), but it won't define him on National Security. He's already won that battle against Obama because of Obama's many flip-flops on the Iraq war, Iran, Jerusalem and preconditions.

    Obama should redefine the terms of the battle and make it about the economy, IMHO.

    In my view, the most dangerous thing of all is to charge ahead into the General Election thinking that everything is going to be sooooo easy for the Democratic nominee. Better to be overprepared than underprepared.

    This overconfidence frightens me quite a bit.

    Parent

    yes and if (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by smott on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:05:18 AM EST
    ...the MSM were in any way objective McCain's gaffes would be major stories.

    BUt the MSM is not objective, they're lapdogs.

    FOr God's sake they saw Bush in a flight suit and they all had to go change their underwear.

    Now they've got the real thing.

    You think they're not going to protect their guy?

    Parent

    I don't believe the Sunni-Shia mixup is (none / 0) (#189)
    by MarkL on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:15:03 PM EST
    a gaffe. The Bush administration has been doing that  for years. It suits their purposes to do so.

    Parent
    McCain's (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:48:33 AM EST
    camp doesn't have to have those people. It will be done by GOP 527's. Some of them are already bubbling around on the internet. One is especially bad.

    Parent
    OH and PA (none / 0) (#70)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:23:44 AM EST
    The Ohio and PA polls that map is based on are from mid-May.  I suspect renewed polling will present a more optimistic picture in those states.

    OT: GQ Interview with Mark Penn (none / 0) (#87)
    by robrecht on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:34:28 AM EST
    Hi, BTD.  Did you see the reports of the GQ Interview with Mark Penn? LOL. Look forward to your post on this.

    ...meaning that Clinton's supporters have by and large come to terms with her loss and coalesced around Obama. None of the demographic weaknesses demonstrated during the Primary seem to be issues at all now that the General is here.

    I expect to see a larger margin for Obama once new polls are released for PA and OH, probably in the range of 6-10 points in each state.

    So far, three special elections have shown that Democrats can win even in Republican strongholds. If all the newly registered Democrats (thank you Barack and Hillary) actually come out to vote in November, we can expect to see an electoral landslide. Mark my words.

    not this supporter (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by smott on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:44:07 AM EST
    Got my new Indie voter's card today!!

    GAng any suggestions about what to do with the old one?  Tear it up and send pieces to Dean and Brazile??

    Parent

    Hopey Changey as much as you like ... (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:27:10 AM EST
    ... as one of 18 million Clinton supporters, I'm not sold on Obama. He doesn't automatically get those votes just because Bad Obstacle Lady is "gone" now.

    I still haven't seen any sign from him or his toss-drunk campaign that he's serious about addressing the concerns of disgruntled, major longtime Dem supporters or actually earning their trust and their votes.

    Quite the opposite: the level of contempt has increased and the quality of dismissal has become ludicrous.

    The GE isn't a big caucus to game or a simple field on which to unleash the Pester Power of astro-turf uncontested.

    Pretending that an Obama win will be a cakewalk without the Dems he's p!ssing off turning out in force is burying your head in the Koolaid. They have too many other options and Obama's not making any new friends.

    His polls showing his popularity against the worst administration in history are weak, and that's without yet facing the really rotten opposition yet.

    Parent

    Except for (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:45:03 PM EST
    men, older voters and people who live in the suburbs.  Oh and the almost 40% of former Clinton voters who are either voting McCain or staying home.

    But except for those, yeah, Obama's da bomb.

    Parent

    Old White Dudes (none / 0) (#151)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:53:34 AM EST
    Obama leads in more than most, I believe he leads in all but one...old white guys overwhelmingly support McCain. The other 40 groups back Obama.

    And I agree with the electoral landslide. The GOP has shot themselves in the foot from day one with Bush. Purple states are blue, red states are purple. For McCain to compete he will have to be in every state repeatedly between now and November with neither the money nor the energy to do so.

    Bush shot McCain in the back in 2000. Bush is a noose around McCain's neck in 2008.


    Parent

    McCain lost his maverick (none / 0) (#160)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:06:10 AM EST
    status the day in 2000 when he practically kissed George's boots out there on the stump.  

    That feisty independent status would have come in handy right about now as he fights an unwinnable battle to be painted as the man to give us Bush's 3d term.

    Too late though.

    He's stuck with Bush, Bush's War, Bush's Recession and Bush's Wild Unpopularity.

    Dems will prevail by a fair margin.

    Parent

    Bush War (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:17:54 AM EST
    Everyone is stuck with that, not just McCain.

    Parent
    Taking into consideration (none / 0) (#173)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:27:13 AM EST
    how easily some of the states are swayed by the Republican attack machine I'm not paying a whole lot of attention at this date.

    So much.... (none / 0) (#185)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:09:05 PM EST
    for one person, one vote eh?

    Another reminder the electoral college really has to go...it renders millions of votes meaningless.  

    And let's toss out caucuses with them (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by abfabdem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:16:56 PM EST
    as those votes sure seemed to count for a lot more than regular primary votes.  There is no doubt Obama ran a smart primary by focusing on the caucuses but the GE is something else entirely.  Unfortunately, that's how Hillary ran her campaign and would have won with GE rules.  So let's see if Obama can translate this "win" to a very different GE strategy.  Perchance he has won the battle but the war is another thing altogether.

    Parent