Skip to main content

Given their inability to catch up on the popular vote, contests won, or delegates earned (the real measure of success in this primary), the Clinton campaign is now shifting their argument toward "electability". They argue that Wright has made Obama unelectable. As we've seen in a fair amount of recent polling, while Obama suffered a second Wright-driven dip in the polls, he's rebounded strongly from that.

Again I'll go to Electoral-Vote not because I agree with its methodology (which I think could be improved), but because Clinton supporters cite it frequently and offers what is possibly the best-case scenario for Clinton.

Back on May 1, the map was 243 Obama, 269 McCain, 26 tied. For Clinton, it was 291 versus 247 for McCain.

As of yesterday, Clinton was still at 291, McCain at 236, and 11 tied. However, with the post-Wright headache waning, Obama is up to 264 Obama, 263 McCain, and 11 tied.

But that's not what's most remarkagable. It's this:

            Obama  Clinton

Strong Dem   135     109
Weak Dem      72     135
Barely Dem    57      47
Exactly Tied  11      11
Barely GOP    99      17
Weak GOP      67      88
Strong GOP    97     131

So check it out: Obama locks down this base (strong Dem) better than Clinton, and he strips down McCain's "strong GOP" base by 34 EVs.

Then, in the "Barely Dem" category, Obama has to defend 129 EVs versus Clinton's 182 EVs, a dramatic difference.

Then let's look at the "Barely GOP" category -- Obama puts 99 additional EVs in close play while Clinton only has 17 EVs within easy range.

What's that mean? Clinton has few places to play offense, and a lot more marginal states to defend. Let's take a look at some of those swing states, using Pollster.com's averages:

        Obama v McCain    Clinton v McCain  Margin

CO (9)    46     43         40      49      O+12  

FL (27)   39.2   47.1       43.6    43.9    C+8.2

IA (7)    48.4   41.8       42.7    46      O+9.9 

ME (4)    51     39         47.5    42      O+6.5 

MI (17)   42.5   41.2       40.5    45.7    O+6.5 

MN (10)   51.1   39.7       44.3    46.8    O+13.9

MO (11)   39.9   52.8       46      48.2    C+10.7

NV (5)    45     43         40      49      O+11  

NH (4)    41.2   51         42.7    48.3    C+4.2

NJ (15)   53.4   37         51.3    41      O+6.1 

NM (5)    44.2   50         45.1    47.1    C+3.8

OH (20)   43     44.8       48.7    41.4    C+9.1

OR (7)    51     42         47.9    45.4    O+6.5 

PA (21)   43.7   43.9       47.4    41.1    C+6.5

WA (11)   49.3   44         44.2    45.2    O+6.3 

WI (10)   47.3   43.1       42      46.7    O+8.9 


What about non-swing states that could be in play this year?

        Obama v McCain    Clinton v McCain  Margin

AR (6)    30     53         51      38      C+36  

IN (11)   43.5   50.5       41.5    52.5    O+3   

NC (15)   40.5   48.9       38.3    51.2    O+4.5 

TX (34)   43     48         42      49      O+2

VA (13)   43.1   52.2       37.7    55.5    O+8.7 


Note that these aggregate polling numbers includes some numbers from the worst of the Wright mess, so this is sort of a worst-case scenario for Obama. And yet Obama does better in competitive (or potentially competitive) states with 134 168 EVs, while Clinton does better in states with 128 94 EVs.

Now this list omits several potential competitive states because of a lack of multiple polls. But early (and sometimes outdated) polling suggest that Clinton puts additional pressure on Kentucky and South Carolina, while Obama puts pressure on Alaska, South Carolina, Nebraska, Montana, and North Dakota.

Let's do another chart, this one of states that are in play or potentially in play with the two matchups (based on polling):

           Blue States       Red States
          Obama  Clinton    Obama  Clinton

McCain v.           CT        AK
                    HI                AR
            MI      MI        CO      
            NH      NH        FL      FL
                    OR        IN      IN
            PA      PA        IA      IA
                    WA                KY
            WI      WI                MO
                              MT
                              NM      NM
                              NV
                              NC
                              ND
                              OH      OH
                              SC      SC
                              TX      TX
                              VA
                                      WV


What's this all show? For one, either candidate can win, so the notion of "electability" is moot. They're both electable, and they would both beat McCain.

Obama gets to play less defense and has more targets to stretch thin an outmatched McCain. Clinton would have more defense to play, and fewer places to play offense. But that's all keeping in character with a campaign that is committed to running the same six-state strategy from the last two cycles (OH, FL, MO, WI, PA, and MI).

But I didn't do all this to show that Obama is "more electable" than Clinton. Rather, I wanted to show, conclusively, that Clinton is not more electable than Obama. At worst, it's a wash.

The Clinton campaign is asking the supers to stage a coup against the will of the voters predicated specifically on this "electability" argument. For the delegates to dramatically spurn its voters, as well as its loyal African Americans, energized youth, and generous creative class professionals, there would have to be a dramatic disparity between Obama's and Clinton's chances this November.

Clearly, that's not the case.

Not a single argument in favor of a superdelegate putsch holds water. Not a one.

Update: I'm not sure why I slotted in Texas for Clinton. As the commenters pointed out, he runs two points better than she does in the Lone Star State.

Update II: The Clinton trolls seem to have missed the fact that I'm using polling averages, not whatever favorable single poll they can cherry pick out of each race.

Check out the matchups at Pollster.com for yourself. And if a state doesn't have enough polling, I didn't include it. No need to cite single polls that could be outliers or hopelessly obsolete.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:10 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Remarkagable. (10+ / 0-)

    Please dont fix that typo, it's a great new word.

    Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. Relentless!

    by ablington on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:11:56 PM PDT

    •  Also great? This analysis. (18+ / 0-)

      Read it, Supers.

      Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. Relentless!

      by ablington on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:13:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  this information has been out there (5+ / 0-)

        that's the problem, the data has been out there, it's been put into easy to read/digest excel/powerpoint/whatever format for the uncommitted superdelegates to see for a while.

        And yet, they wait. For what?

        This equation is not changing, even if Clinton wins both primaries tomorrow. Even if she wins all the primaries the rest of the way. The song will remain the same. But any such victory for Hillary lets the doubts remain, allows the wound in the Democratic Party fester for just that little bit longer, to where even radical surgery might not be able to heal (us) in time to properly contest the November general election.

        And still they wait.

        Here's hoping, praying (for those of you so inclined), for an end to this fratricidal madness tomorrow. The moving on, the healing needs to begin NOW.

        •  They want to cover their own arses (7+ / 0-)

          by letting the voters decide (even though they pretty much already have).  I'm ok with that, so long as it basically ensures Obama wins.  

          Now personally, I'm not sure I'll last another month!  But so it goes...I guess an Obama presidency is worth it!

          Never give up! Never surrender!

          by oscarsmom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:31:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I Want What Your Smoking! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DebzLogic, dsharma23

          They both have 'equal' chance in the fall?

          Are you nuts!?

          Look at the analysis.  It comes down to Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Florida - AGAIN.  Which candidate can best compete in these four states?  The answer is obvious - Hillary.

          Obama is done in Florida - he has no chance. Hillary runs even and can win it. Ohio, McCain is ahead of Obama and will probably win because of his Scots-Irish advantage and white working class problem Obama has.  At best Obama runs even with McCain in Michigan and PA.  Hillary would win all three in a walk.  Geez!  Are you so blind as not to see the obvious?

          If the election is held today with McCain vs Obama. McCain wins.  If its Hillary vs McCain, Hillary wins.
          Do you really want to take the chance that Obama is somehow going to get better by the fall?

          •  I'll take the chance (0+ / 0-)

            Do you really want to take the chance that Obama is somehow going to get better by the fall?

            1...Clinton is part of the DC machine, Obama isn't (yet).  Give him 4 or 8 more years and he'll be undesirable too.

            2...Clinton is willing to sell out 97% of the Americans who are not Jewish for the 3% who are.  Personally, I don't want Israel running the US government any longer.  

            There is one nuclear power in the mideast, Israel, and the Muslim world is under that gun.  They know how Israel treats the Palestinians and know they could be treated the same.  Is it any wonder they want nukes too?

            Hillary and AIPAC have the same goal, Obama doesn't (which is why he could never win in Florida) and I'm willing to take the chance on him.

          •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

            The problem is the super del. They won't vote for Hillary. They are scare to upset blacks.

      •  This super thanks you Kos... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dsharma23, NY Dem

        I am being inundated with email asking me to change my support from Sen. Obama. The HRC supporters claim that she will be the more electable. I can use this analysis, in one place, to include in my response.
        I am also sending this to my DNC colleagues who will also appreciate the information.

        Thanks for the timely data Markos.

        DKM - Colorado "DNC superdelegate" for Sen. Obama.

    •  This is the focus. We need a Dem in the WH soon. (9+ / 0-)

      Moral victories won't cut it.  I voted for Hillary, but  Obama has really impressed me over the past few months.  I would be excited to have either one in the White House!

      •  I used to be excited at the prospect of either (11+ / 0-)

        one, but now I know that I will be pretty sad voting for Clinton (which I will do) if she is the nom.

        If Hillary is the nom, my focus will have to be tearing down McCain. Yet another election against someone, instead of for someone.

        Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. Relentless!

        by ablington on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:18:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i can't do that (5+ / 0-)

          I won't do that. My days of voting against someone are over. Count me out in November if it's Clinton v. McCain. I'll focus on the downticket races.

          Blech.

          -7.38, -5.23 One day we ALL will know the truth about the 2000 presidential election. God help us all.

          by CocoaLove on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:19:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Me too (6+ / 0-)
          But now that Hillary has taken away all our best answers against McCain I don't know what to say. The Roe v. Wade thing just doesn't resonate with me because I'm more concerned about Supreme Court justices who always favour government and corporate power over the rights of citizens and I no longer feel confident that Hillary would appoint non-corporate justices.

          We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

          by anastasia p on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:20:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Clinton has done a lot of annoying things (4+ / 0-)

          in this campaign.  But I'm convinced when she says

          "Once we have a nominee, we're going to close ranks and have a unified party because the differences between us as Democrats pale in comparison to the differences we have with Sen. McCain and the Republicans," she said.

          I wish she had conveyed this approach and attitude all along, but I think she's a very combative campaigner.  That's how she rolls.  At this point I do prefer Obama, but I'm not hatin' on Clinton like too many Kossacks seem to be.    Either one will get the job done (undoing Bush damage, appointing progressive judges, environmental issues, etc), although electing Obama would send an incredibly powerful (and much needed) message to US citizens and the world.

          •  I'll believe Clinton when (6+ / 0-)

            I see it.

            Sorry, it's hard for me to trust anything Hillary Clinton says.

            To a Democrat, "democracy" means "free elections." To a Republican, "free markets."

            by XOVER on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:34:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There goes that hatin' again! ;-) nt (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gavrik
              •  They are the ones (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gavrik

                destroying Obama and the party. I can't stand him for the way they are trashing Hillary. Who can trust people like that? Haters...They are doing the same thing the extreme right is and has been doing. They aren't better. The thing is we know the delegates will nominate him for fear to outrage blacks, and it's going to divide the party anyway. McCain will win.

                •  Democratic Party caves to wild-eyed blacks! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mbzoltan

                  The thing is we know the delegates will nominate him for fear to outrage blacks

                  For the record, Blacks would have no problem if Clinton  won fairly, following the rules as they existed at the beginning if the process. What Blacks take exception to is the appearance of Obama being cheated out of the nomination. What seems grossly unfair is the idea that the will of millions of voters being over turned because Clinton doesn't think caucus states, red-state voters, blacks, latte liberals, or party activists count for much of anything.

                  It's not Obama losing, it's Obama getting cheated that will spark the dreaded "Black outrage". One would like to think a few white folks might also be a little peeved at seeing the contest results overturned.

                  "I ain't so afraid of losing something that I ain't gonna try to have it." Zoe (Firefly)

                  by geejay on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:20:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But if you (0+ / 0-)

                    count MI and Fla she won the populsr vote. Like Floridans are saying they are a big state and their votes don't count. Obama won i red states that vvote republican in general elections. He will lose to McCain. I repeat, the s.delegates will give Obama the nomination because they don't want to upset black people. It's unfair for those who don't want him. It's the reason we'll vote for McCain. Sharpton is behind that protest running his mouth in front of the cameras like he always does. Tha's not winning. The party is more divided than ever and you'll have 4 more yrs reps.

                •  No, the delegates will nominate him (0+ / 0-)

                  because he has more money and more delegates and, as of now, more of the popular vote.

                  •  Mi and Fla (0+ / 0-)

                    count them. Anyway the super delegs will GIVE the nomination to Obama because they are afraid of blacks and the race card. I said it before. Part is paternalism, guilt and hatred toward the Clintons for Bill going to the center. Obama is going to do the same thing. They are afraid of Sharptom who is threatening them with demonstrations. They are just waiting for Indiana and N.C. They have already makde-up their minds. Black power.

                    •  Nonsense (0+ / 0-)

                      If, as will be the case, neither Obama nor Clinton will have enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination, then the superdelegates will "give" the nomination to one candidate or the other.

                      The fact that they are under no obligation to use any particular criterion such as popular vote to make their decision makes them suspect to the public, who have come to see primaries as a democratic election where the people's will must be respected. In fact, the superdelegate system was created precisely to make the nomination a Democratic Party rather a purely popular decision.

                      However, that flies in the face of public expectations and, being mostly politicians, the superdelegates have no choice but to take that into account. Supporters of both candidates want the SDs to respect the popular vote. You insist that Florida and Michigan's popular vote be counted, but that would be cheating since the primaries there are discounted because the state parties deliberately broke the rules. Obama's case for not counting those votes is obviously stronger.

                      Your border-line racist evocation of "black power" and riots in the streets ignores the simple political fact that the black electorate is a core Democratic constituency and hence wields considerable influence. They don't need to riot in the streets. All they need to do is stay home. That is a legitimate concern for superdelegates, not a case of pandering or being intimidated. If a party wants a coalition it has to keep that coalition alive. If you don't want to be a part of that coalition, go ahead and jump to the Republicans. It sounds as if you're halfway there.

                •  yep if Obama is not elected the blood will flow (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ohiobama

                  in the streets as outraged African Americans take to the streets lynching random whites at their outrage over being denied the presidency. When Hannity and Rush and Savage started this whole thing over Black Nationalism, the Panthers and other fear factors, I said to be sure no mainstream people will give this a second thought. Instead, we now find that Michelle is Angela Davis and Obama was sandbox buddies with the Soledad Brothers.

                  •  Blood in the streets? (0+ / 0-)

                    yep if Obama is not elected the blood will flow...in the streets as outraged African Americans take to the streets lynching random whites at their outrage over being denied the presidency.

                    I'm not for blood flowing in the streets, not for any reason.

                    BUT....Where was the White outcry when the Supremes stopped vote counting and anointed Bush? Where was the White outcry when Kerry walked away from his promise to count and recount every vote?  Kerry had plenty of volunteer lawyers to dissect every Ohio precinct and he would have carried that state, thus the nation.  But instead Kerry gave up and his supporters said nary a word.  

                    Are the Blacks the only ones with cojones?  If all of us non-blacks won't raise a finger to protect our interests, why not let the Blacks have a try?

      •  You got that right. (5+ / 0-)

        On Saturday night I watched a two-hour special on the superstation (for you, just Channel 9 for us Chicagoans) WGN, "Cubs forever."  I was stunned to watch Supreme Court Justic John Paul Stevens talk about watching Babe Ruth hit his "called" shot in Game 3 of the 1932 World Series at Wrigley Field!  My God, that was more than three-quarters of a century ago!  

        The first thing you want a Democratic President for is to accept the letter of retirement that is likely to come from Justice Stevens on January 21.  Heaven help us all if Stevens has to leave the bench and McCain is President.

        •  Heaven help us (0+ / 0-)

          if Stevens leaves the bench and Senator Clinton, pro death penalty, hawk, and corporate shill, is President.

          •  Your point? (0+ / 0-)

            If you think Obama will appoint better Supreme Court justices, I agree.

            If you think that there wouldn't be a difference between Hillary's and McCain's picks, you're smoking something illegal.  

            But don't fool yourself into thinking that Obama is going to appoint a member of the National Lawyers Guild.  He would appoint someone progressive, but the law is a conservative field.

        •  Superdelegates must watch the Superstation? (0+ / 0-)
        •  WHy? (0+ / 0-)

          The abortion issue is finished already-that went away after Roberts and ALito got to the Court.  Now its just a matter of time before Roe is overturned de facto if not de jure.

          I doubt that Hillary and McCain would select judicial candidates that were very different from each other. Main stream pro-corporation and pro-business people.  Hillary would likely try for woman, but she won't be a radical, just a nice middle of the roader like O'Conner. If McCain is prez, and nominates some Alito clone, it will be very important to have a nice big Democratic majority prepared to not confirm, thats what I'm going to focus on if Hillary is the nominee-getting 60 seats in the Senate. But McCain will not try to be the right wing nut Bush is, he doesn't have to be because he doesn't owe those people anything.

          Remember the byword of  Clinton administration Version 0.1: "triangulation."  Its how they got everything done, usually giving away any principle for a political win. Hillary is already doing it to position herself for the election.

          I hope Obama wins so he can expand the Court and stuff it with liberals.

          •  Obama (0+ / 0-)

            will go to the center because he wants to be re-elected. Do you think he wants to be a one-term president? I don't think so. Bush won with the extreme right and the religious right. he was elected twice. The religious right will move against Obama.

      •  Take your calm, rational comments elsewhere sir! (0+ / 0-)
  •  Electability? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dsharma23
         But, but...I thought she was the "change" candidate.
    •  More Obama Electability Advantages. (0+ / 0-)

      Don't forget Obama's fundraising prowess.  He's vastly outraised Hillary with a huge donor base of small donors.  He has much stronger grassroots, activist support than Hillary.  On top of all this, Obama is in line with Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy(ie. Dems compete everywhere) which was highly successful in 2006, giving the Dems the control in Congress again.  Obama is planning a 50-State voter registration/activation push.  What a powerful synergy this will be for Dems in the Fall.  Also, Obama focuses as much on "Red States" and "small-to-medium states" than Hillary does.  He does much better in these states (Mountain West, Virginia, North Carolina, etc.) while Hillary entirely dismisses these.  She's of the old-school mindset of focusing on "Blue States" and the few "Swinger States".  She has no intention of challenging McCain on "his" turf whereas Obama will.  These additional electability factors make it a slam dunk for Obama to gain the support of the vast majority of Superdelegates if these SDs actually want to win the White House.
      Hillary is bitterly clinging to a desperate pipe dream.

  •  Putsch= Clinton unelectable! (13+ / 0-)

    A putsche would automatically make Clinton unelectable with much of the Obama consituency, starting with me, and with AAs and progressives, and so on..
    I vote no on "Obliteration."

    •  Absolutely correct (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NM Ward Chair, Hellenic Pagan

      At best Hillary manages to tie Obama.  However, the superdelegates throwing the nomination to Clinton when she is not clearly superior to Obama and there is nothing disqualifyingly wrong with Obama would inherently cause great trauma and disruption within the Democratic party -- enough so that Hillary would be less electable than Obama, and quite probably unelectable.

    •  That's the problem with the "electability" (0+ / 0-)

      argument.

      Obama's numbers have "Clinton defectors" built in; Clinton's numbers do not, however, reflect the wholesale attrition of African-American voters if the first viable black presidential candidate had the nomination stolen from him by unelected delegates.

      If Clinton gets the nod, MI, OR, WI, IA, and CO are out of reach, she all but loses PA, WA, and NJ, and OH and FL are firmly in play.  Someone please, please, please tell me how the Democrats win in the general with that electoral map.

      There are people who say, "If music's that easy to write, I could do it." Of course they could, but they don't. - John Cage

      by RoscoeOfAlabama on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:56:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A lot of issues that haven't shown up (19+ / 0-)
    in polling make Clinton less electable. The main one is that since she's grabbed so eagerly and hard at right-wing talking points, she's going to have to go an acrobatic about-face for the general election or she'll be indistinguishable on many key points from McCain -- and voters, still nursing the idea that McCain is "practically a Democrat", which the media won't disavow them of, will vote for the original, not the "me too."

    We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

    by anastasia p on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:14:23 PM PDT

  •  Here's my analysis: (21+ / 0-)

    It's not enough for them to make the case that Hillary is "more" electable by a couple of percentage points or anything else.  In order to justify overturning the pledged delegate count, they must make the case that Obama is UNELECTABLE.  And that is a pretty high mountain to climb.

    Game over.

    Never give up! Never surrender!

    by oscarsmom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:14:42 PM PDT

    •  I think you could make the case for Hillary (7+ / 0-)
      being unelectable, as she clutches at staying in Iraq for several generations, "obliterating" Iran, being  "tough," waving guns -- all red-meat issues on which McCain would destroy her. The gas-tax rubber stamping is just an embarassment; people see through that. But she won't be able to make a campaign against McCain about issues like the Rev. Wright and Bill Ayes and flag lapel things. Oh, not that McCain doesn't have plenty of that stuff to toss at him, but the media will be indignantly and angrily protective in a way they weren't with Obama. So that leaves her with addressing the concerns uppermost in Americans' minds and she's been doing a shitty job of that.

      We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

      by anastasia p on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:19:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly--perfect followup-- (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NM Ward Chair, Hellenic Pagan

        Hillary IS unelectable--at least if she wins this any other way than fair and square by somehow winning the pledged delegates (and maybe even if then).  Including, of course, by winning enough SD's.  They know this--at least, enough of them do.

        Never give up! Never surrender!

        by oscarsmom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:36:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Obama (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gavrik

        was the darling of the Media. The Media got scared with the anti-American rantings of his pastor. Sexism is greater than racism. Some men and women don't want a woman for president. Argentina and other countries have a woman for Pres. Not the U.S. you all are very behind in comparison to these countries. Obama is the darling of liberal white males and females driven by guilt for past injustices. or worse, for hatred toward the Clintons. Affirmative action isn't enough for them. Count Mi and FLA and Hillary won. We are very divided and it's the reason McCain will win. The republican states that voted for him against Hillary will vote for McCain. Hillary won the big states. Don't tell Florida their vote don't count.

        •  I live in CA-- epitome of a "big state" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew

          and it doesn't matter that she won by 8 points here. You think if Obama is the nominee, that McCain would take the state? No way. Obama is still going to take California by 55%-60%.

          Ability to win a state in the primary is absolutely no indicator of winning in the general election.

          You're forgetting that opinions are constantly changing. Just because Clinton won a state a couple months ago doesn't mean that all those people in that state still would vote for her. A lot has happened over the last few months.

          "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent" --Gandhi

          by dsharma23 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:52:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

            They may vote for McCain then. Most latinos and catholics don't want Obama. They rather vote for McCain. I know. Hillary is the only one to beat McCain.
            The republican states that voted against her, won't vote for Obama against McCain. capice?

            •  no (0+ / 0-)

              everything you're saying is going against data. Hillary is not more electable when compared to McCain. They both do well, and data suggests that Obama does better and changes the electoral map.  

              Latinos won't vote for McCain when Obama has called the immigration debate for what it is: scapegoating. Latinos won't vote for McCain when Obama is advocating for driver's licenses for illegals, and McCain's administration is filled with neo-conservatives who have played politics with our border.

              And I'm sorry, but Catholics are just a voting bloc-- they don't vote according to their religion. There are a number of factors at work here.

              What you're saying is akin to someone saying that AA would never vote for Clinton, nor would young people. That's a lie-- too.

              Everyone will rally around the Democratic nominee when faced with the choice of more war, more Bush, a possible draft, and NO ONE wants another President Hoover during an econ crisis.

              "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent" --Gandhi

              by dsharma23 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:28:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Why are we having this discussion anyways? (12+ / 0-)

    Hilary Clinton lost the delegate battle, hence the nomination.  Simple as that.
    Time to move on to McChuckles.

    Republicans are not a national party anymore.

    by jalapeno on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:16:35 PM PDT

  •  They are daring Obama's campaign (5+ / 0-)

    to say the word Monica.

    To argue that because of Reverend Wright, Obama is more scandal prone than the Clintons is so bizarre that some people seem to be looking right past it.  The argument they are making is what they were prepared to fight against in the primaries.  Obama didn't  bring that cheese so they pulled it out on him.  

  •  Watching Hillary (7+ / 0-)

    say absolutely anything to win is just sad. I really feel bad for her.  

    If electability is all Hillary's got ( and the argument is weaker than Larry Craig in a girls restroom) Camp Clinton wants a coup.  

    "Sometimes I wish I could change my nickname" Me

    by givemhellHarryR on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:16:59 PM PDT

  •  Hell, I've seen a couple of polls (12+ / 0-)

    where they throw Gore into the mix and even he beats McCain. Only when the Democratic nomination is sealed and Dems have the chance to rally behind their candidate -- and after Obama gives his big nomination speech at the convention -- will we know what the electoral map truly looks like.

    Too many Hillary supporters are being bitter, telling pollsters they wills stay home or vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. They better get over that soon.

    Don't Legitimize Fox News.
    "Democrats have the heart to care."

    by jeepdad on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:17:05 PM PDT

  •  If an "electability" argue was enough to secure (13+ / 0-)

    the nomination why the hell would we bother having primaries?

  •  but but but but (6+ / 0-)

    he hasn't been vetted!
    he doesn't wear a flag pin!
    Hillary is crunchewier!

    Yeah, I made up that last one. Could you tell?

    We drew our heavy revolvers (suddenly in the dream there were revolvers) and exultantly killed the gods. -- Jorge Luis Borges, Ragnarok

    by Hobbitfoot on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:17:29 PM PDT

  •  game over (5+ / 0-)

    Time to pack up the ballots and get ready for Nov. 7. The Obama team is ready to roll!

    -7.38, -5.23 One day we ALL will know the truth about the 2000 presidential election. God help us all.

    by CocoaLove on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:17:34 PM PDT

  •  Shameless I am..but once again.. (7+ / 0-)

    Please rec. the food bomb diary. Some Kossacks are trying to keep the workers fed tomorrow.

    I took Hickory (loved the name) and they were sooooooo shocked and pleased that someone from NM was going to help them. Of course I told them it was a DKos thing :)

    Kossacks for Obama Food Bomb

    Its the delegates that count

    by Morgan Sandlin on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:18:47 PM PDT

  •  GOP running attack ads against Barack in NC (7+ / 0-)

    That is really telling.  And also all of the dirty laundry the GOP is saving for Clinton has not been factored into this.  With the conservatives helping Clinton in the Dem Primary she has not been able to beat Barack.  Imagine if they went after her and finally vetted Clinton?  Barack would win the electability argument easily.

  •  TX spread?? (5+ / 0-)

    Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks like Obama +2 to me, not Clinton +2?

    I like his ears, they are big and well suited to listening, and his lips have the hue of a democratic future.

    by laderrick on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:19:50 PM PDT

    •  If the numbers were written right, you're right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hellenic Pagan, hillgiant

      I was thinking that Obama was polling better in Texas than Hillary. I was surprised to see it in the Clinton column.

    •  You're right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oscarsmom

      That line is messed up.

      Give me liberty, or give me death!

      by salsa0000 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:27:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, I fucked it up (8+ / 0-)

      Fixed now. The numbers look even better for Obama, obviously. We're talking 34 big ones.

      •  Really? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        evanaj, gavrik

        then add California's 55 to Clinton's side of the ledger, because it is closer than New Jersey, and she's up two.  Also, see if you can find Kentucky and West Virginia.  They're still in the union, last time I checked, but somehow they didn't make your state-by-state add-up-the-numbers graph.

        If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

        by dhonig on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:15:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  CA is not, nor will it ever be, a swing state N/T (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          flight2q

          There are people who say, "If music's that easy to write, I could do it." Of course they could, but they don't. - John Cage

          by RoscoeOfAlabama on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:23:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Funny, but (0+ / 0-)

            the same can be said of lots of states Kos included.  If New Jersey is a swing state, by the numbers here, you have to give Clinton +55. That, or stop screwing around with the numbers.

            If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

            by dhonig on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:48:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  NJ has been flipping back and forth. (0+ / 0-)

              Not that long ago, McCain was beating both Dems in NJ.  I agree, NJ won't be in play this cycle, unless there's a mass desertion of African-American voters (hmmm...what would cause that?).

              But you're overlooking the point of this post: it's not that Obama is more electable than Clinton.  He is, but that's not the point.  The point is, Clinton is not so much more electable than Obama that we need to overthrow the pledged delegate count.    The superdelegates need to wrap this up, and soon, so we can focus on the fall.

              There are people who say, "If music's that easy to write, I could do it." Of course they could, but they don't. - John Cage

              by RoscoeOfAlabama on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:36:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  but you're overlooking my point (0+ / 0-)

                which is that this post has NO point if it is dishonest.  Or, at best, you can't trust the point.

                If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

                by dhonig on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:40:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's not dishonest. (0+ / 0-)

                  At no point has a Democrat fallen below +5 over McCain in California, yet twice has McCain polled above a Democrat, including one instance where he beat both.  I don't think NJ will be that close this cycle, but it has the potential to be close.

                  But whatever, don't trust Kos's analysis, trust the analysis of others.  I have seen no data that suggest that Clinton is so much more electable than Obama that we need to overthrow the pledged delegate count.  If you've got such an analysis, I'd love to see it, but I've looked pretty hard and have yet to see such numbers.

                  There are people who say, "If music's that easy to write, I could do it." Of course they could, but they don't. - John Cage

                  by RoscoeOfAlabama on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Ha ha (0+ / 0-)

          Actually, the Pollster.com average is BETTER for Obama than it is for Clinton.

          http://www.pollster.com/...

          Clinton 48.7
          McCain 40.8

          http://www.pollster.com/...

          Obama 50.7
          McCain 42.3

          Nice try, though. But if you really want, I'll add these 55 to Obama's tally.

          •  Cherry picking again? (0+ / 0-)

            I used the same source you did.  The one you based this whole piece of crap on.  But, instead of admitting you were wrong, you hunted for another poll to save yourself from your own lies.

            Really, is all the credibility you built up for the last four years worth pissing away in this one election?  Or are you just so blind you don't even know you're making a complete fool of yourself?

            You have become a cartoon, a caricature of yourself.

            If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

            by dhonig on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:50:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  So, Obama does better amongst all groups (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2

    except the weak Dem and weak Rep, those not committed enough to the party to be active in it, but without enough testicular fortitude to be truly independent.

    I am from MN and if you think our caucuses are undemocratic I have a lake to introduce you to.

    by edgeways on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:20:18 PM PDT

  •  Correct MARGIN for Texas (4+ / 0-)
    I think MARGIN column for Texas should be set to OBAMA.  He is down by 5, she is down by 7.
  •  I hate this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hellenic Pagan

    Hillary has won.......... but she has actually lost.

    It is a blind sided propaganda push worthy of Hugo Chavez.

    Overthrow the Government ~Vote~

    by missliberties on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:21:16 PM PDT

  •  kos, did you send this to Jerome? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bill White, oscarsmom, jds1978
  •  I am so sick (4+ / 0-)

    of the nonsense. Watching the news and created arguments of electability seem like a low rate B movie spoof.

    Nauseating.   T

    Virtue does not come from wealth, but. . . wealth, and every other good thing which men have. . . comes from virtue --Socrates

    by BlackBox on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:24:39 PM PDT

  •  For a preview of where the Wright debate's going (5+ / 0-)

    From Focus on the Family radio today still discussing Wright, there were comments such as one person observing he had never heard any Black leader say anything good about the US.
    The other person took the opportunity to observe that slavery was a long time ago and Blacks should just get over it. He continued that he was tired of Black ingratitude for the Civil War where many thousands of White men died so that Blacks could be free. He felt it was time for Blacks to show some gratitude to the US and what they had been given.

    I was surprised to hear this out in the open; on some RW blogs and WP sites, sure. Not on a nationally syndicated radio show.

    It just goes to show it is going to get a lot uglier as the knives are coming out and the race issue is going to get a lot more overt among some people who should really know better.  

  •  FL MO OH (4+ / 0-)

    When I looked at this last week I noticed that there were only three states I felt Clinton was better than Obama against McCain (FL MO OH) and where she could win. There were also several states I thought were doubtful that she could win (AR KY WV).

    By contrast, Obama has WA OR CO TX MN IA MI WI VA SC NC where he does much better. It remains to be seen whether red states like TX NC SC VA are ready to go blue but at least the polling says it is possible.

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:25:19 PM PDT

  •  Why do the Texas numbers shock everybody? (5+ / 0-)

    I've been saying it for years, The Republican phenonmenon in Texas is fairly recent and fleeting. Though there is a strong conservative streak in Texas historically, that never seemed to translate well when it came to movement conservatives and the whack jobs. Yes, obviously there are pockets of folks who elect people like Tom DeLay and Warren Chisum but for the most part, even the conservative Texans tend to be sane ones. Hutchinson for example was just fine until she drank the koolaide in the nineties. John Cornyn is going down. It would be nice if there were more than a few hundred of us supporting Noriega and if he got some official party love but whether or not that happens, Cornyn is going down. People here see him as a mindless, gutless sycophant and though Texans value loyalty to some degree, Loyalty and canine obedience are different tunes.

    •  Because we've had 20 of the last 28 years (5+ / 0-)

      with a 'Texas' candidate on the Republican side of the ballot.

      That long a time, a heck of a lot of people are going to think of Texas one way.

      •  Truly (4+ / 0-)

        I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make and I blame my clumsy command of language. What you say about the chimp and his daddy are of course true, the fact that neither of them are actually from Texas notwithstanding but my point was that Texas isn't nor has it ever been, deeply red. There were more Democrats representing Texas in the US congress than there were republicans up until DeLay pushed through his abominable redistricting scheme through the state house.

        •  Northern Dems and Southern Dems (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          heliosfootball, Hellenic Pagan

          Not that I'm any sort of historian, but as I understand it, the reason for Texas being so Dem heavy was that there were really two kinds of Dems back then. It was that way in most southern states.

          Most likely because Lincoln was a Republican. Can't have southerners voting for the Party of Lincoln, that bastard that destroyed the South.

          After the 60's, with the Democrats pushing the civil rights stuff through, southern Dems couldn't handle it any more and abandoned the Dem party for the Republican party.

          The process was a little slower here in Texas for whatever reason, and the policies not so clear cut, I guess.

          The upshot is that as I understand it, the Republican party we have in Texas now is more like the Democratic party that used to be.

          I could be entirely misinformed on it. That's just the impression I've gotten and have probably vastly simplified the whole thing.

          So, Texas having been historically Democratic doesn't necessarily mean that us potentially going Dem now is a 'return to the way it was.'

      •  So- could Democrats put a texan in their VP slot (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NM Ward Chair

        and carry the state?   That would change the map.

    •  Lost by +20 in both 2000 and 2004 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NM Ward Chair, Hellenic Pagan

      Bill Clinton couldn't carry Texas either. Not since Jimmy Carter has a democrat carried Texas.

      Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

      by Scarce on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:32:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  When (3+ / 0-)

      was the last time a Democrat won a statewide elected office? It's been slim pickings since Ann Richards.

  •  If Obama is so unassailable... (5+ / 0-)

    ...then why isn't an Obama victory in Indiana a fait accompli? Why is his margin in N.C. dwindling? Why was Guam a virtual tie?

    It's time to wipe off the smiles and do away with the arguments for Obama's inevitability. It's time to make sure he wins this damn thing, and pretending that everything's peachy isn't going to carry the day.

    •  No, but Hillary's SD edge bleeding away will (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Julia C, Hellenic Pagan, hillgiant

      Did anyone announce for her today?

      Bueller?

    •  the thing is (4+ / 0-)

      HRC drummed up all the junk she could find against Obama and he's bounced back nicely. Conversely, Obama has not mentioned all the junk in the dual Clinton closet. The goopers will do that in the fall if she's the nominee and we all know it.

      I defended Bill back in the day. Won't spend an ounce of energy defending Hillary or Bill this time around and I daresay a lot of Dems feel the same way. Without us to smooth over the attacks, how would she win?

      No thanks. I pass.

      -7.38, -5.23 One day we ALL will know the truth about the 2000 presidential election. God help us all.

      by CocoaLove on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:30:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I defended both of them. (0+ / 0-)

        But my state of Wisconsin doesn't matter to them anymore. We're not big enough. I guess our ten electoral votes don't count. Good thing. Obama will win here. Hillary won't. Oh, but I keep forgetting. We don't count to the Clintons.

    •  Wrong frame, no one is unassailable or inevitable (6+ / 0-)

      Obama is simply a better General Election candidate

      Always remember that God made you as a truly special and unique human being, just like everybody else.

      by Bill White on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:32:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  so do the math (4+ / 0-)

      Obama needs fewer delegates than Clinton; divide them and give HRC 60% of all remaining primaries. She still loses.

    •  Because momentum is not a factor (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hudson, Involuntary Exile, hillgiant

      this year, in case you didn't notice.  Of course the MSM still has to catch on to this observation (now that we are pretty much done with the primaries).

      The stage was set as soon as after Super Tuesday.  No states shifted from one to the other candidate after that.  Those that were tight remained tight.  

      Hillary is an unbelieveable frontrunner to beat, an incumbent.  Remember how hard it was to fight Joe Lieberman??  NO ONE would have been able to beat her easily, and it's amazing Obama has been able to beat her at all.

      Wish we'd hear a little more of this perspective in the press.  Oh well.

      Never give up! Never surrender!

      by oscarsmom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:45:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's what we should constantly remind the MSM (0+ / 0-)

        Obama has won twice as many states as Clinton.

        And nothing has or will happened to change that.

        "Animals are my friends. And I don't eat my friends." -- George Bernard Shaw

        by Hudson on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:59:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  They are both good canidates (0+ / 0-)

      One is just better than the other.

    •  reverse the question (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Involuntary Exile

      if she's so awesome why is a little known politician with a funny name in the lead? she started off with all the advantages - name recognition, money, endorsements, ex-president in her back pocket. Why could she not put the "empty suit" away?

      And I believe inevitability was her campaign slogan

      "I ain't so afraid of losing something that I ain't gonna try to have it." Zoe (Firefly)

      by geejay on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:29:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Still too many racists in Indiana, unfortunately. (0+ / 0-)

      And Bill and Hill are doing everything they can to hype the concerns of less educated whites.

      •  Have you seen my bong dude? (0+ / 0-)

        Famous words of educated white college students.

        Let me preface this by saying I'm a degree educated white dude in the military.

        This less educated thing has to stop. There's a difference between someone being educated and their actual vote being educated.

        It would be just as wrong for me to label all white college students as pot smoking, under-age drinking, money wasting, irresponsible, wet-behind-the-ears Obama lovers.

        All that being said some college students are like that so I don't think we should get all impressed that this crowd is following Obama. They don't have life experience yet. In 2001 some of them were in middle school.

        Short of being a political science major I don't see how any college text book makes you "more educated" when it comes to politics.

        That's my rant for now but I just want people to be aware of the education slant being thrown around. Almost as if dumb white people vote for Hillary and smart white ones for Obama.

    •  Because Clinton has the GOP on her side. (0+ / 0-)

      Obama is getting hammered by Republican attack ads and talking points, and he's continuing to make consistent gains despite a fractured Democratic Party.

      There's nothing that McCain can toss at Obama in the general that the Clinton campaign hasn't beaten to death, and by then we'll have the entire party united behind us de facto and de juro.  

      McSame doesn't stand a chance.

      There are people who say, "If music's that easy to write, I could do it." Of course they could, but they don't. - John Cage

      by RoscoeOfAlabama on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:32:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He could do better (0+ / 0-)

        but Wright betrayed him. He is jealous of obama and he will do anything to stop him or hurt him. Republicans will use him to destroy Obama in Nov.

        •  Dunno (0+ / 0-)

          If I were gonna read into motives here, I'd think Wright was trying to help Obama.

          Obama needed to fully denounce Wright to move on, but Obama wasn't going to do that to a friend.  So, Wright got on TV and said every stupid thing he could think of.  Now, Wright's been renounced, and he's old news for the electorate; by Novemeber, no one will even care.

          There are people who say, "If music's that easy to write, I could do it." Of course they could, but they don't. - John Cage

          by RoscoeOfAlabama on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:53:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Nuclear Option (0+ / 0-)

    On the huffington post, there is an article that says the hillary team considers using their cronies on the Rules and ByLaws committee to seat BOTH MI and FL.

    Didnt they vote against MI and FL and now will reverse that?

  •  50 states vs. 6 states, take your pick (14+ / 0-)

    I'm going with 50.

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make.

    by Cartoon Peril on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:26:31 PM PDT

    •  seems like that leads to better margins in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cartoon Peril

      congress with stronger support/visibility/excitement for down ticket races

      more support in congress means more and better legislation passed

      "I ain't so afraid of losing something that I ain't gonna try to have it." Zoe (Firefly)

      by geejay on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:30:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There goes the "Big State" argument (9+ / 0-)

    Obama will win California, and Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, and New York. To think otherwise is a little dumb.

    •  No, Clinton wins Pennsylvania and Ohio (0+ / 0-)

      I don't know.  It doesn't look as good to me as you all seem to think.  Seems that people are wallowing in some wishful thinking.  I am more comforted by the thought that pre-general election polls don't mean anything.

      I am a strong Obama supporter but I agree with some of the comments that the states of most concern are in Hillary's column .... for now.

      Why do you necessarily have to be wrong just because a few million people think you are? ~ Frank Zappa

      by alliedoc on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:22:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

      Dreaming..... The reason the delegates haven't given Obama the nomination already  is because they know he didn't win the big states. They are waiting, they are pro-Obama, but they are afraid to divide the party precisely because she won the big states and if you count FLA she is the nominee. Otherwise they would have
      nominated him already. He is their guy. He has more delegates. They want a black for pres. and they don't want to upset blacks. They can't wait to nominate him.
      They will be helping McCain, though.

  •  Even this would not be enough (6+ / 0-)

    The Clinton campaign is asking the supers to stage a coup against the will of the voters predicated specifically on this "electability" argument. For the delegates to dramatically spurn its voters, as well as its loyal African Americans, energized youth, and generous creative class professionals, there would have to be a dramatic disparity between Obama's and Clinton's chances this November.

    Because that could change.

    But it is worse. Clinton is asking the Democratic Party to stage the coup. That wouldn't be just a coup. It would be the coup de grace to the Democratic Party.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:29:50 PM PDT

  •  typo in second table, TX is O+2 not C+2 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hellenic Pagan
  •  Is it worth it? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vicky, Julia C, Hellenic Pagan

    Even assuming that Clinton is "more" electable (whatever that means) is it really worth the risk to the African-American vote and the youth vote that has been invigorated by the Obama campaign?  This isn't about just electing a Democrat to the presidency.  This is about making a major reform in American politics and marginalizing the GOP.  We want 1997 in Britain.  We want to crush the GOP so that real change can be brought to the US.  Obama can excite the base far more than Clinton.  Making Clinton the candidate will make the base feel like Clinton has been appointed and that the primaries mean nothing.  I am not saying that people will vote for McCain but that Obama will get them out to vote.

    •  White professional demographic (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vicky, Involuntary Exile

      Most of the people I know will vote for Obama in the general election no matter who the nominee is.  Won't get fooled again.

      •  Definitely true as far as I'm concerned. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vicky

        If the Rules Committee and Supers throw the nomination to Hillary I'll be writing in Barack Obama's name on my ballot, and the Party will never get another dime from me ever again, nor will they ever get one single minute of my volunteer time.  I'll make contributions of time and money to individual candidates I believe in.

        I want to live in the future, not in the past.

        by Involuntary Exile on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:50:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It is funny that it boils down to: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe Willy, nellre, Hellenic Pagan

    What's this all show? For one, either candidate can win, so the notion of "electability" is moot. They're both electable, and they would both beat McCain.

    Which is pretty much where we started this whole mess way back when. On one hand it eases a little concern that the Dems have shot themselves in the foot, on the other... well I just wish we could move on to kicking McCains ass.

    I am from MN and if you think our caucuses are undemocratic I have a lake to introduce you to.

    by edgeways on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:31:36 PM PDT

  •  By the way... 'Gas tax holiday' DOA in Senate. (7+ / 0-)

    SENATE REALITY CHECK ON GAS TAX PLANS

    Clinton's and McCain's separate proposals for suspending the gas tax this summer will very likely run out of gas shortly after hitting the Senate floor later this month. Because it takes 60 votes to pass any controversial bill in the Senate, McCain and Clinton will easily fall short. Democrats would loath to support virtually any proposal from the presumptive Republican nominee, and support for Clinton's measure is lukewarm among her own Democratic colleagues.

    So much for Hilary's vaunted "leadership."

  •  "McCain Dems" will decide the general election (0+ / 0-)

    I think the above is an excellent analysis and shows that at this point in time, electability is not a valid reason for anyone, including superdelegates, to favor Clinton over Obama.

    However, a new poll reports:

    A considerably high 38 percent indicated they would vote for McCain, while 6 percent said they would vote for independent Ralph Nader, and an additional 11 percent were undecided.

    The story linked above claims that the 38 percent is due to Republican meddling:

    "This 38 percent is one of several statistical signs that Republicans are meddling in the Democratic fray, knowing full well they will vote Republican come November," said Paleologos.**

    ** David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center

    I'm not so sure this number is completely, or even mostly, due to Republican meddling. Judging from the animosity I'm reading on the blogs, there is a very real number of Democratic voters who will not support the eventual Democratic nominee. That's because each side is increasingly seeing the other side as preventing the legitimate selection of their choice.

    I'm not saying that this justifies anything that Clinton is doing, just that her supporters perceive that she deserves the nomination. Obama supporters feel the same way. Neither candidate is expected to serve on a unity or join ticket with on as VP.

    If this plays out as it seems it will, I expect McCain to benefit greatly from this effect.

    •  Sorry link to poll story is here (0+ / 0-)

      Poll: Clinton Leads Obama in Hoosier State
      http://www.suffolk.edu/...

      •  OK here is the money quote (0+ / 0-)

        from the study:

         "However, 38 percent of these likely Democratic voters -- which include registered Democrats, Republicans, members of other political parties and independents -- said they would vote for John McCain in November if their Democratic choice does not win the party’s nomination."

        How are members of the GOP, independents and other party members considered in the poll if the poll is about how Democrats will vote in the GE.

        •  Indiana is an open primary (0+ / 0-)

          That is how GOP, independents and other party members are considered in the poll.

          Have you read the blogs across the board? Do you have reason to think that this kind of defection will not happen given the animosity between the Clinton and Obama camps?

          •  McCain is not Reagan (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hillgiant

            and the ability of people to vote against their own vested interests is limited.  As gas continues to go up in price ($5/gal by July 4?) and the ripples continue through the economy, McCain is going to have a continually hard sell as far as continuing Bushconomics.
            Even people who are opposed to Obama on the most viscereal levels will have to reconsider. Right now the question is how much more Bernacke will cut rates to keep the economy from total collapse. He does not have very much margin before he runs out of room lowering rates.  I am still betting on the reemergence of stagflation (except it is already here)  

            •  I think the point is slightly different (0+ / 0-)

              (See also my other comment below.)

              I think the issue is not McCain at all, or whether he is like Reagan. Rather it is the anger over the Democratic nomination taking precedence over other issues.

              You say: "Even people who are opposed to Obama on the most viscereal levels will have to reconsider."

              Imagine if you would agree with this statement if somehow Clinton got the nomination: "Even people who are opposed to Clinton on the most visceral levels will have to reconsider."

              Then run a poll here on Daily Kos. You will find that almost no one would vote for Clinton if she were the nominee.

              I think it is more likely that some Clinton supporters will come around to Obama than the other way around, but it seems overly optimistic to think that this will not affect the GE.

              •  when push comes to shove (0+ / 0-)

                people will vote their interests; as far as a poll of Kossacks most would probably hold their noses and vote Hillary as McCain exposed more and more of his character and behavior. If polls were so accurate, there would be no reason for elections, especially this far out.

                Another element is the state and local elections; are you saying Kossacks will ignore these if Hillary is the nominee or that they will go into the polling booth and ignore the top lever?

        •  I think I understand your question now (0+ / 0-)

          GOP, independents and other party members are indeed registered in non-Democratic parties. But the question  as written (or at least as given in the answer) is about the Democratic choice. So it is assuming that the primary voters are being honest that they had wanted to vote Democratic in the GE and that the current animosity is causing them to switch to McCain (or Nader, etc.).

          The story about the poll claims that the 55% number is inflated due to Republican meddling, which is in line with your suspicion above.

          My point is that the number may be inflated, but not as much as the story claims, and that it may not take a lot in terms of defections to McCain (or Nader, etc.) to tank either Democratic nominee.

          Given that Obama is the likely nominee, I think it boils down to whether Clinton supporters will support him or turn on him. At this point, I'm leaning toward think that a lot of them will defect in anger, perhaps enough the jeopardize Obama's chances.

          Plus, the more people (such as Obama supporters) say they would not vote for Clinton if she were the nominee, the higher the chances (I think) that Clinton supporters would get payback in the GE.

    •  Isn't that 55% of Democrats may decide not to (0+ / 0-)

      vote for the Democratic nominee? Something isn't right here.

      •  Not sure of your question (0+ / 0-)

        The poll story says:

        Only 44 percent of Indiana Democratic Primary voters said that, if their choice lost the Democratic nomination, they would still vote Democratic.  A considerably high 38 percent indicated they would vote for McCain, while 6 percent said they would vote for independent Ralph Nader, and an additional 11 percent were undecided.

        44 + 38 + 6 + 11 = 99% (close to 100%)

        That seems to total up OK to me. What do you think isn't right?

        Bear in mind that the poll was of Indiana democratic primary voters only - which is why the 55% number may seem high to you.

        However, the overall effect, while it likely will fall short of an average of 55% across the nation, may be enough to hurt the Democratic nominee enough to cost them the race.

  •  This whole thing is bullshit (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Julia C, Hellenic Pagan, hillgiant

    I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing about Wright and how "Obama is dogged by Wright." Everybody knows someone who says things that others might not agree with. Wright doesn't speak for Obama, he isn't a member of his campaign, he's not even a close friend of Obama's. This whole thing is bullshit and it has to stop!

    This is actually worse than the swiftboating of John Kerry. Kerry got swiftboated over things that Kerry actually did. Obama is getting swiftboated over things that some guy who's totally unrelated to Obama said.

    If it wasn't Wright, it would be someone else. There's hundreds of millions of people in this country and everybody knows someone who pisses people off. Why can't we put this crap to rest already?

    "Universal health care for every man, woman & child. That is our cause." -John Edwards 1/30/2008 [-8.63, -7.03]

    by jesses on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:34:10 PM PDT

  •  What about the future? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    heliosfootball, hillgiant

    I know the current election is and has to be the main focus of this analysis, because we've got to get a Dem into the White House. But I'm also struck again and again with the implications of the Obama campaign for the future of the Democratic Party in this country.

    For young voters, Obama is the face of the Democratic Party. He has expanded the base for the future. Even if either candidate could win THIS election, even if their electability were equal, or even if Clinton had a slight edge over Obama in electablility, for the sake of tomorrow's elections, Obama needs to be the nominee.

    •  True, but Clinton supporters may defect this time (0+ / 0-)

      The longer this nomination fight drags on, the worse it will be for either candidate.

      A lot of Obama supporters say that they would never vote for Clinton if she got the nomination. But they think that somehow Clinton supporters aren't saying the same exact thing about Obama.

      I support Obama, and I hope Clinton supporters will come around. Indeed, I wish they would vote for Obama to help end this thing. But that's not going to happen.

      We may well see Obama lose in the GE and then beat McCain in 4 years. Don't be surprised if it happens.

      Just hope that Clinton loses in NC.

      •  It's not the same (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, Involuntary Exile

        I'm a lesbian, and I know a LOT of Clinton supporers. My girlfriend is one of them. None of them hates Obama. I'd say the overall sense is one of indulgent pity that we fell for his "populist charm" or demagoguery. But hate him? Disagree with his campaign strategy or his policies? No.

        On the other hand, there are two things happening among Obama supporters: A visceral dislike of the Clinton campaign's strategies, particularly the "campaigning from the right" issue, that has become extremely personal, and a genuine belief that if she takes the nomination by superdelegate support, it will be another tainted, stolen election and will destroy the party.

        If she won it fair and square, even using "dirty campaigning," it would have the effect you describe. But if she gets it by anything other than a straight-up win of the delegates, the election will never be seen as legitimate by Obama supporters and many of them WILL NOT remain in the Democratic Party because they will feel they have been betrayed, and that the Party is not what they thought.

        The two situations can't be compared, and I don't know a single Clinton supporter who has one-tenth the animosity towards Obama that Obama supporters so often have towards Clinton.

        For Clinton supporters it will be "my candidate didn't win." For many Obama supporters, it will be "an injustice has been perpetrated."

        That is the difference, and the problem.

        •  Referring back to Bill (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew, ChristieKeith

          One description of his support was "a mile wide and an inch thick". I think the same is true for Hillary.

        •  Re. visceral dislike of Clinton campaign's (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew, ChristieKeith

          strategies, this is absolutely the case with me and my Obama-supporter friends.  I'd go so far as to say that because of her tactics a genuine loathing of Hillary has set in.  It was not always thus.  Most of us started out preferring Barack but felt fully capable of voting for Hillary in the General.  Now, no chance.  Sad to say, any good will we felt toward Hillary back then is gone forever.

          I want to live in the future, not in the past.

          by Involuntary Exile on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:06:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary, Down on Points, Swinging for a Knockout (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe Willy, hillgiant

    Hillary Clinton is like a boxer down on points and swinging for a knockout in the late rounds. She can not hope to close the point gap. She can only hope to connect on one of her wild punches. Tuesday is the 14th round. Nearly 200 of the available 680 delegates will be decided. She won't get her knockout. If she answers the bell for the 15th round, all we can expect is more wild punches. This desperate strategy rarely works, and usually ends up with the challenger on the canvas sooner rather than later. If Hillary's corner won't throw in the towel, the super delegates will do it for her.

  •  TX should read O + 2. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

    by onanyes on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:34:37 PM PDT

  •  Clinton and Obama are both competitive with McCan (0+ / 0-)

    That's the point we should focus on.

  •  You've changed your definitions. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, hillgiant

    The last time you did this analysis, the "base" was "strong+weak", and "barely" was where we got to play offense or defence.

    If we weight, strong dem = 1.0, weak dem = 0.8, barely = 0.6,
    tied = 0.5, barely rep = 0.4, weak rep = 0.2, strong rep = 0.

    I get Obama = 285.3, Clinton = 275.1.

    So I agree with your conclusions:  either can win, and there's no evidence that Clinton is "more electable".

    peace,
    lilnev

    Obama > Clinton >>> McCain

    by lilnev on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:36:27 PM PDT

  •  So who do the Dems wanna lose less? (0+ / 0-)

    African Americans or white women???

    LOL, this is too much of a good thing for the dems having 2 historical firsts

    •  Dems won't lose white women (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hillgiant

      not with Roe Vs Wade in the Balance. Not when equal pay is in the balance.

      "Beware the terrible simplifiers" Jacob Burckhardt, Historian

      by notquitedelilah on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:49:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, my dear (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vicky, DFLerMN

        We all Marched for Women's Lives decades ago.  And now young women are turning their backs on Clinton.  The hell with them--they can figure out how to control their biological clocks on their own time.  

        •  So for the sake of clinton you will (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew

          Allow your granddaughter's and your nieces' bodies to be controlled by the GOP. How about their right to privacy, their right to descent, their right to march as you once did.

          Are you sure she is worthy of the sacrifice you ask of the future generations of your descendants?

          "Beware the terrible simplifiers" Jacob Burckhardt, Historian

          by notquitedelilah on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:02:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Young women (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Vicky

            are faring better today than women did in earlier times because of many of the paths forged by the early feminists.  Perhaps that's why they do not feel they need to vote for a woman simply because of her gender.  It seems petty to expect them to be bitter for the prejudices of earlier days.  Can't the older feminists be proud of themselves for helping the younger generation of women have more equality (I know, still not enough) than the generations that went before rather than resenting them for it and expecting them to kowtow to all women over fifty?

            •  It's exactly because your tireless efforts (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              askew

              in the cause of feminism have born their intended fruit that we do not feel the urgency to vote for a woman. It is because we feel that we have reached a point where our worth is self evident and universally acknowledged and that our rights will be protected by the democratic president whether it may be Clinton or Obama.

              It is because of your great efforts on behalf of feminism that we today can look at Clinton and see a Candidate not a woman. Just a candidate like any other Candidate and judge her quality not her gender.  In our eyes she does not need any special favors because she is equal to her male counterpart.

              The question remaining for us was is she first among equals? The answer in our judgement of her as a candidate is No. So we chose Obama.

              Don't you see this is what you have marched for, women and men judged equally without the advantage or disadvantage of gender.

              Thank you for all you have done for me and the sisters of my generations. Thank you,

              "Beware the terrible simplifiers" Jacob Burckhardt, Historian

              by notquitedelilah on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:43:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Borne their intended fruit. (0+ / 0-)

                where's the Underground Grammarian when we need him?

                •  I'm afraid it's useless to dwell on my spelling (0+ / 0-)

                  mistakes, they are far too many to count. You will most likely find one or more in every one of my posts. Mostly because I'm a crap typist who is typing on a crap keyboard with letters that stick. As for my spell checker well that's my fault really I'm using Netscape!

                  So apologies for the spelling, the wording and grammar however is intended.

                  Now then, how about parsing the message rather than the form in which it was delivered.

                  "Beware the terrible simplifiers" Jacob Burckhardt, Historian

                  by notquitedelilah on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:21:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Who's expecting anyone to kowtow? (0+ / 0-)

              We're all on our own, making our own decisions.  By the way, you forge metal, not paths.  Blazing trails, maybe?    Aach, they don't teach English anymore.

          •  No, for the sake of the woman. (0+ / 0-)
          •  I'm assuming you meant right to dissent, or were (0+ / 0-)

            you being poetic about procreation?

        •  Wah wah wah (0+ / 0-)

          Yeah and young women have marched for their own rights as well. Don't go overboard patting yourself on the back.

          No one forced you to come here. No one forced you to read through pro-Obama posts. So don't blame anyone here for how YOU feel or how YOU choose to vote.

          by BrighidG on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:35:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  ah, the ole if you're a woman and don't vote (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew, Vicky, fromdabak

          for Mrs Clinton you must be a traitor to your sex. Bought into it lock stock and barrel.

          I am from MN and if you think our caucuses are undemocratic I have a lake to introduce you to.

          by edgeways on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:49:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Dems WILL lose white women (0+ / 0-)

        On the one hand, there is the issue of the rights of women.

        On the other hand, there are the principle and practices of democracy itself. If Hillary should usurp the elected delegates, we will consider democracy to be most vital.

    •  How about (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, Vicky

      the supporters of the candidate who actually won?  It makes a big difference, particularly when you change the standard for the first successful African-American candidate.

  •  Sigh... (0+ / 0-)

    looks like Ohioans get to determine another presidential election.  The rest of us should just stay home.

    •  Wouldn't be that close. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      acquittal

      AAs in Philly and Detroit would stay home, so MI and PA goes red.  Liberal college kids aren't gonna put down the bong for Clinton, so WA, OR, and WI slip over too.  We surrender Obama's advantages in IA, CO, NM, and NV, so those stay safely red.  And, again without AAs, MO stays red.

      Which means Clinton has to shoot the moon with IN, OH, KY, NH, WV, CT(!), and FL just to drag herself to 270.  Not gonna happen.

      There are people who say, "If music's that easy to write, I could do it." Of course they could, but they don't. - John Cage

      by RoscoeOfAlabama on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:45:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Texas Should be O+2 (0+ / 0-)

    Obama's behind by 5 and Clinton's behind by 7.

  •  A few points.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    evanaj, Lesser Dane, gavrik

    What's this all show? For one, either candidate can win, so the notion of "electability" is moot. They're both electable, and they would both beat McCain.

    Agreed.

    The Clinton campaign is asking the supers to stage a coup against the will of the voters predicated specifically on this "electability" argument.

    This language is absolutely not helpful for Democrats.  This is precisely what superdelegates exist for.  

    If you want to argue that superdelegates (SDs) must represent their states, tell Senators Kerry and Kennedy and my Gov. Henry to back Hillary.  My view is that those 3 (and others) are well within their rights as SDs to back whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose.  

    Just spare me the "coup", "putsch" language that pre-emptively de-legitimizes a Clinton nomimation.  Don't worry, the Republican'ts and their compliant, conservative, corporate media will do that just fine on their own.  (BTW, you seem to be pretending they won't, but they'll do it to Obama eventually, too!)

    If/when BO gets the nomination, I'll be for him 100 percent.  I simply ask the same from his supporters if Hillary gets the nomination.

    In closing, I'm a greedy bastard:  instead of a false choice, I want both.  I want 8 years of Hillary AND 8 years of Obama.

    I'm not sure why I slotted in Texas for Clinton.

    Um, because she won its primary?

  •  I think it'll boil down to supers not daring (4+ / 0-)

    to alienate our party's most reliable voting block - African Americans, and will hand it to Obama.

    All this Clinton noise is due to them refusing to adjust to the fact that she won't be our nominee.

    Obama will run out the clock and cruise to Denver.

    He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire ::Winston Churchill::

    by Jeremy10036 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:40:58 PM PDT

  •  electoral votes (0+ / 0-)

    If primary victories were rewarded with a state's electoral votes, not including FL and MI, what are the totals?  As an old guy, that's the way we should nominate candidates--use the rules of the general election.

  •  McCain over Clinton in MN? (0+ / 0-)

    44.3 % (C) to 46.8% (McC.)

    I don't think so. MN has not voted for a Republican for President since 1960, with the exception of Nixon's second term race vs. McGovern.

    Won't happen.

  •  Politico says Obama doen 15 in SuperDicks (0+ / 0-)

    why is ti larger here?

  •  You know, since you're (0+ / 0-)

    so convinced that BO has won already [as are many others external to this site], why bother beating your head over extended analyses like these?

    BO has won.  Put something else up.

    Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:44:33 PM PDT

    •  When Clinton (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, bawbie, Spathiphyllum, oscarsmom

      and her supporters get the message.

      Until then, I'll just have to keep hitting them on the head with the obvious (as much as Clinton now hates "experts" and "math").

      •  If he's winning, then (0+ / 0-)

        what's the point? Most of the HRC supporters have abandoned DK.  DK is just an echo chamber now.

        So, to reach and convince HRC supporters, you need to start a new blog, under a fake name obviously, and ease them into the reality instead of hitting them on the head.

        Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:12:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hey Markos, a suggestion on the delegate counter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe Willy

    I notice when the amounts change, but don't always know exactly why.

    How about a single sentence under the chart showing the explanation?  Not a paragraph.

    Like if the three MD supers are counted now, the sentence could read "three MD supers added to Obama super del total" or something.

    I notice the NBC's First Read count is different is the Kos-o-meter not updated yet with the same delegates?

    NetrootNews coming soon!

    by ksh01 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:44:37 PM PDT

  •  Electability (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oscarsmom, Julia C

    Hillary Clinton isn't electable, because republicans hate her and half of the democrats hate her.  If she were to become the nominee, a lot of democrats will stay home, because there isn't an inch of difference between her and John McCain.  Republicans will never vote for Hillary Clinton, and if she steals the nomination from Barack, there are a lot of democrats who will not vote for her either.

    She is not electable.

    •  Write-in (0+ / 0-)

      Everyone I know is talking write-in in November if Clinton is the nomination.  That would be the most effective means to show the party how you feel if they gave her the nomination (which I can't imagine they would do, especially with Dean at the head).

  •  Now they are arguing for the popular vote!! (0+ / 0-)

    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    The Clinton camp is arguing that they will win the popular vote (and you know they will include FL and MI in their argument).  And don't think they won't take this to the convention.

    I comment earlier today on this article in response to another thread.  I just want people to take this seriously.  The Clintons sure as hell do.  

  •  check out www.fivethirtyeight.com (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lesser Dane, unertl

    for a highly sophisticated analysis that gives obama a better shot right now...an infinitesimal lead over Mccain with Hillary losing substantially. Kos should cross check his results with this guy's.

  •  I read Kos's careful analysis (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vicky, oscarsmom

    and I read and rec'd many of the very persuasive comments above, and I just have to say:

    Why is an entire nation being held captive to the Clintons' delusional fantasies?

    Why is a population of millions made to engage in this ludicrous farce?

    I know, I know, a judicious drip drip drip of the superdelegates is politically savvy, it allows remaining voters to have their say, we need Hillary's supporters later, blah blah blah.  I do understand all of that.

    But it is driving me crazy crazy!  It is a wonder that more of this country is not being driven batshit crazy by this!

    Thank you for indulging my rant.

  •  While your conclusion is correct (0+ / 0-)

    Your comparison on "Barely Dem" (which apparently also includes the "Weak Dem" numbers) is wrong.  That Clinton has more electoral votes here is a positive for her.  I would argue that it is negated by Obama doing a better job of locking down not only the base, but traditional Blue states generally, and also putting entire new regions into play (most notably, the Southwest and one of Nebraska's electoral votes).  But let's be honest about what's what.

  •  Incredible? No, NON-credible. In fact, BS. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    evanaj, lastamendment

    let's look at this again, shall we?  Basically, this is Obama's candidacy on opposite-day.  Clinton wins Republican votes, Obama doesn't, and somehow that makes Obama the better candidate?  Absurd.

    Okay, now, on to the details.

    The last shall be first, okay?

    What about non-swing states that could be in play this year?

           Obama v McCain    Clinton v McCain  Margin
    AR (6)    30     53         51      38      C+36

    IN (11)   43.5   50.5       41.5    52.5    O+3  

    NC (15)   40.5   48.9       38.3    51.2    O+4.5

    TX (34)   43     48         42      49      O+2

    VA (13)   43.1   52.2       37.7    55.5    O+8.7

    Look at that one again.  Take your time.  Kos chooses to compare Clinton to Obama.  Clinton won't be running against Obama, and Obama won't be running against Clinton.  That graph tells you something, but not what Kos wants it to tell you.  It tells you Clinton wins Arkansas.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  Clinton wins Arkansas.  Sure, Obama can lose Texas or Virginia by less than Clinton, but the General Election is state-by-state winner-take-all.  Clinton wins Arkansas.  Obama doesn't.  End of graph.

    Oh wait a minute, sorry, not the end of the graph.  Hey Kos, where is West Virginia in your list of States one candidate puts in play, and the other doesn't?  Obama loses, 35-53, but Clinton WINS, 47-42.  Your failure to include that state, WHICH HAS ITS PRIMARY NEXT WEEK SO IT'S NOT LIKE YOU JUST FRICKIN' FORGOT ABOUT IT, alone, tells me you are completely full of shit, over the top, selling your soul dishonest.

    Kos' take on this one is equally comical:

    Let's take a look at some of those swing states, using Pollster.com's averages:

           Obama v McCain    Clinton v McCain  Margin

    CO (9)    46     43         40      49      O+12  

    FL (27)   39.2   47.1       43.6    43.9    C+8.2

    IA (7)    48.4   41.8       42.7    46      O+9.9

    ME (4)    51     39         47.5    42      O+6.5

    MI (17)   42.5   41.2       40.5    45.7    O+6.5

    MN (10)   51.1   39.7       44.3    46.8    O+13.9

    MO (11)   39.9   52.8       46      48.2    C+10.7

    NV (5)    45     43         40      49      O+11  

    NH (4)    41.2   51         42.7    48.3    C+4.2

    NJ (15)   53.4   37         51.3    41      O+6.1

    NM (5)    44.2   50         45.1    47.1    C+3.8

    OH (20)   43     44.8       48.7    41.4    C+9.1

    OR (7)    51     42         47.9    45.4    O+6.5

    PA (21)   43.7   43.9       47.4    41.1    C+6.5

    WA (11)   49.3   44         44.2    45.2    O+6.3

    WI (10)   47.3   43.1       42      46.7    O+8.9

    They both win Maine and Oregon.  But the real tell, the one that exposes the absurdity of the whole thing, is New Jersey.  Both candidates are up by double digits.  Yet Kos includes them.  Why?  Not out of any sense of honesty, that's for sure.  No, he needs New Jersey to balance out:

    FL (27)   39.2   47.1       43.6    43.9    C+8.2

    OH (20)   43     44.8       48.7    41.4    C+9.1

    PA (21)   43.7   43.9       47.4    41.1    C+6.5

     

    Shame on you.

    If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

    by dhonig on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:54:47 PM PDT

    •  But wait, there's more (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      evanaj, lastamendment

      In Kentucky, Obama loses 29-63, but Clinton is only down two, WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR, 46-48!

      You're not even pretending any more, are you?

      If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

      by dhonig on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:56:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary relies on 2 states OH and FL (0+ / 0-)

      Obama doesnt, just because republicans vote for hillary now doesnt mean they will in Nov, operation choas or no.

      Obama needs to win all Kerry's states plus CO, NV, NM. OH is bonus and anything else

      •  Wrong (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        evanaj

        But I see where you get that from, given Kos' failure to actually include Clinton's stronger states, or to downplay her overwhelming advantage in Arkansas.  Add Arkansas, West Virginia, and Kentucky to her side of the ledger, and stop pretending New Jersey is on the list for any reason other than balancing out Clinton's superiority in the Electoral College.  Heck, as I already noted, New Jersey is an easier Democratic win than California.

        If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

        by dhonig on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:10:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And (0+ / 0-)

      California is closer than New Jersey.  Why don't you add California to the list?  Here's a clue:

      CA (55)  O-50 M-43   C-50 M-41  C+2

      You're not even pretending any more, are you?

      If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

      by dhonig on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:08:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  shame on you? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew

      Christ, you losers are hysterical.

      •  Losers? (0+ / 0-)

        funny, I would call somebody who lies in a diary a loser, not somebody who points it out.

        If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

        by dhonig on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:43:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If Hillary Clinton (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vicky

      is the party's nominee and I vote for her, will the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iranians be on my hands?  By dint of your reasoning, her war vote means she already has the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on her hands.

  •  And if Obama adds the right VP, it's over (0+ / 0-)

    Strickland would deliver OH. Webb would deliver Va.

    If the solution has never been to look at yourself, how is it that you expect to find it anywhere else?

    by glutz78 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:59:45 PM PDT

    •  Obama-Richardson 08 (0+ / 0-)

      that puts CO, NV AND NM in play and they hang tough elsewhere

    •  Strickland is a Trojan Horse (0+ / 0-)

      Yeah he might add Ohio. He would also guarantee that no "new politics" pledges are kept, that the big coal and nuclear companies are kowtowed to, and that no political machines were threatened. He'd also act as an inducement to assassination, just as LBJ did, and he'd be a constant stalking horse for the Clinton faction.

      Add to that that his popularity in Ohio is plummeting, and Ohio is now caught up in a huge Democratic sex scandal involving the entire attorney general's office.

      If you add Strickland to the ticket, the true progressives in Ohio will oppose it.

      In no way should Strickland ever be considered as a running mate. The man did everything in his power to sabotage Obama in Ohio.

      If you want a Clinton-supporter to mend fences, look at John Corzine of NJ.

      •  ok then... (0+ / 0-)

        I dont want strickland - but i was just saying that he'd be nice to have to win OH. I didnt realize his substantial baggage.

        I'm from NJ. It pissed me off when Corzine backed Clinton but he's a good governor despite his 90mph with no seatbelt thing. Obama wins NJ anyway though. By a wide margin.

        I want Webb first for real. He'll deliver Va and decimate mccain's only attribute.

        If the solution has never been to look at yourself, how is it that you expect to find it anywhere else?

        by glutz78 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:56:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Excelent takeaways (0+ / 0-)

    What's that mean? Clinton has few places to play offense, and a lot more marginal states to defend.

    This is an excelent summation.

    The Clinton campaign is asking the supers to stage a coup against the will of the voters predicated specifically on this "electability" argument. For the delegates to dramatically spurn its voters, as well as its loyal African Americans, energized youth, and generous creative class professionals, there would have to be a dramatic disparity between Obama's and Clinton's chances this November.

    Clearly, that's not the case.

    Ditto.

    Well [dusting off hands] that's that, eh? So convincing, even the Clintons themselves will agree, I am sure. Thank goodness we can put all this behind us now. [cough]

    Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.

    by Quicklund on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:04:03 PM PDT

  •  I just love it how you and Obama Talk Down (0+ / 0-)

    To us everyday Americans!!!!See ya in the Fall

  •  TYPO re: "'Barely Dem' category" (0+ / 0-)

    The analysis says, "Then, in the 'Barely Dem' category, Obama has to defend 129 EVs versus Clinton's 182 EVs, a dramatic difference."

    I believe that's adding Weak Dem and Barely Dem.  In just the Barely Dem. category, Obama has to defend 57 to 47.  

    It doesn't really change the analysis, it just threw me off for a second.

    I think the point remains from the SUSA map back in early March:  

    Hillary's electability is based on playing the Gore/Kerry map and winning Ohio and/or Florida where she's currently running strong, while (hopefully) holding onto the mid-sized blue swing states of WI, MI, WA, and OR where she's currently running behind/weak.

    Obama's electability is based on strength in mid-sized blue states and broadening the playing field.  Obama sails to victory by winning Ohio, but even without Ohio can prevail by bringing in other red swing states (e.g., IA, CO and some combo of others such as NM, NV, 1 or 2 from NE, etc.).

    "Supposing truth is a woman -- what then?" -- Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

    by phaedrus on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:08:59 PM PDT

  •  Hawaii is an Obama state! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Julia C

    Hawaii is a state that votes almost always "Blue," certainly at the Federal level.  Also, the Hawaii Democratic caucuses voted for Obama 70% to Clinton 30%.

    On what poll do you base the last data table, that puts Hawaii for Clinton, but not for Obama, vs. McCain?  Hawaii people would definitely vote for the senator who grew up in Hawaii over McCain, who has merely visited Hawaii.

    •  Hawaii Caucus results (0+ / 0-)

      Obama's actual caucus vote margin was even bigger, via CNN.

      Obama 76%
      Clinton 24%

      Delegate-wise, Obama got 70% of delegates (14) vs. Clinton 30% (6).  Why she got 30% of the delegates when she only received 24% of caucus votes, I have no idea.  

      I'm guessing it's somehow due to county/precinct weighting in delegates.

  •  I Love it how Reich one of YOUR boys Just Called (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    Bronx59

    Hillary Clinton Stupid and Dumb????? You guys are an elite group aren't you?? LOL

  •  These numbers are almost irrelevant (0+ / 0-)

    Look, in a couple of months it will be either Obama or Clinton against McCain.  At that point, all of the ways McCain is conveniently tying himself to Bush can and will be used against him in a court of public opinion.

    I expect most of these states to swing 10 points or more away from McCain from where they are now.  There are plenty of data points that suggest this direction, the win for Cazayoux in LA being the latest.

    Breaking the numbers down to the minutiae we see here might be particularly relevant in September, but they strike me as uninteresting at this time.

  •  LOL John Roberts just tried Real Hard didn't he!! (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    Bronx59

    Hillary slapped his arse down though didn't she!!!! LOL

  •  Admit it Clinton has Clobbered Obama on Gas Tax (1+ / 3-)
    Recommended by:
    davybaby
    Hidden by:
    corvo, Bronx59, The Red Pen

    Obama just mumbles around about it being stupid to give working Americans any little break dum de dum di doe Obama = Mumbles BAHAAAAA WAAAAAAA!!!!!LOL

  •  The best electability argument (0+ / 0-)

    Obama wins independents Vs McCain by a few points, Clinton gets blown out by independents. Clinton's advantages come from democrats who are loyal to her and Obama's people being likely to support her. It's much harder to get swing voters than it is to get your own base around you.

  •  Fl/MI ---- SD's (0+ / 0-)

    what helps a lot, when people come up with the argument, that high powers of the Dem Party "excluded Florida and Michigan". Once you show them, that the GOP did the same within their rules - mouthes drop and eyes open wide :-)
    On the other side, comparing the 2 parties is like comparing......

    About the undecided SD's.
    Imagine you are one and have NOT endorsed anyone in public yet - and maybe you work on a career in politics. or whereever - the "spotlight", the possible offers ( no,I don't mean $$$$)will come as long as you don't come into the open. Afterwards, you'll might just be a #  -  way less known and "important". In a way I understand them - give them the "pleasure".Even I know, that me personally would chose a different road - The Barack Obama Highway !:-)

  •  Obama can't win (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davybaby

    Play with the numbers all you want. Hill can take FL and OH, Barak can't even compete. Game over.
    McCain wins if Obama is the choice.

  •  Clinton is stronger by the numbers in the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    evanaj, gavrik

    electoral college.  It doesn't matter whether Obama would win Washington by 15 points and Clinton by 5 points.  The fact is Washington and every other blue state that has voted blue in each of the last 4 elections is going to vote blue in 2008.  To look at the electability argument, we need to see what net new states each candidate can add to the mix.  

    As of today, it's clear that Hillary adds more than Obama.

    In the south, Obama is not competitive.  Clinton would guarantee Arkansas and has polled strongly against McCain (currently up +9).  

    In the industrial midwest, Clinton is stronger than Obama in Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky. Iowa is stronger for Obama, but Clinton's consistent ability to win the rural vote makes her more competitive over a long election cycle throughout the midwest, including Missouri and Wisconsin.

    Out west, Clinton would be the stronger candidate in Nevada and New Mexico because of her strength among the swing voter groups of the elderly, suburban women, and latinos.

    Camp Obama is looking at states that have no history of voting Democrat:  Colorado, Virginia, Indiana.  He is focusing on small states, and has a much lower electoral ceiling than Clinton, who could quite likely win as large a victory as her husband did in 1992 and 1996.  

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:45:26 PM PDT

    •  Hillary can't rely on those rural areas (0+ / 0-)

      And she knows it. She's only playing to them now because of the potential racial fears that still exist in some areas of that demographic.

      Put her up against McCain in those same areas with a McCain-lite campaign message and she'll be left with depending on just the historic blue states and urban centers.

      And with AAs likely still sour over Obama having the nomination he earned according to the rules taken from him, she'll have a mountain to climb there.

      The electability argument is not only hot air, it defies logic. How can someone who has lost the primary season based on its electoral criteria be more electable than the person who won it by that very same criteria?

      •  Sure she can. She can outperform McCain just (0+ / 0-)

        as Clinton outperformed Dole in 1996.  If you look at Dave Leip's web site you will see that Clinton won several rural counties in places like Ohio, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, and probably would've won more if Perot had not been on the ballot.  Hillary has made a direct appeal to rural america which Democrats don't typically do.  Obama has ignored them.  We can't lose by 70-30 margins in rural america and expect to win.  Hillary's strong performance means that she has a great shot to get 40-45% in rural counties, and even win some, and that is what you need to earn a victory.  

        Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

        by khyber900 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:52:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The problem with Hillary electability is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      flight2q

      you can't get there from here. The polls are based on hypotheticals premised on "If X were the nominee..." However, suppose you phrased the question: "Suppose Hillary Clinton steals the nomination by organizing an override of the pledged delegate vote, would you then vote for McCain or Clinton?"

      You'd get a whole different poll result.

      Plus the match-up polls infamously do not capture the turnout factor. Clinton would drive Republicans to the polls and make African Americans stay home. Obama would excite both Independent and African American turnout.

      Actual not hypothetical electibility strongly favors Obama, since the real election will not be held today, nor will it be held by telephone.

      Kos is being kind by showing their electability numbers to be comparable.

    •  C'mon. Let's be realistic. (0+ / 0-)

      The stories have been out there for years. When Bill's exploits over the last 10 years come out in the open (something Hillary's Dem contenders have never brought up - even though they're aware of them) the spit is going to hit the fan.

      Add that to all the B.S. Hillary has engaged in during the primary - oh, it sure ain't gonna be pretty. The golden girl is not going to look so golden.

      One of the reasons Hillary is still in contention is that her opponents have treated her like a woman. The Republicans won't.

      •  Everyone knows about Hillary's baggage (0+ / 0-)

        and they're ok with it.  It has already been discounted in the market.  One thing I know is that woman can deal with the GOP.  She is as tough as nails and will hit back and will exploit issue areas that divide the GOP from its base or target swing group.  Obama doesn't do that because his is an urban/suburban appeal.  He doesn't speak red neck.  She does.

        Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

        by khyber900 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:53:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  oops. Clinton is up +9 in Florida. In Arkansas (0+ / 0-)

      her lead is double digits.

      Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

      by khyber900 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:49:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama's Wright dip (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Involuntary Exile

    Some polls may show a rebound by Obama over this, but the front page of USA Today tells a different story today.

    Barack Obama's national standing has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his former pastor, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, raising questions for some voters about the Illinois senator's values, credibility and electability.

    The paper is everywhere of course and I can't help but worry that it's 'at a glance' profile will be dangerous for Obama tomorrow.

    •  Just trying to get a little more mileage out of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      randallt

      the issue where others have realized it's worn thin.

      I wouldn't worry too much about it.

      •  Perhaps USA Today is just trying to sell more (0+ / 0-)

        papers, but the point is that it does sell more papers.  The public is into the Wright controversy.  The "angry black man who hates America" meme really works.  No matter that it is the exact opposite of what Barack stands for.  Wright is black; Wright hates America; Obama is black; Obama attended Wright's church; ergo, Obama hates America.  The slime's not going to come off easily.  He's going to be fighting the Wright thing all the way to November.  That doesn't mean he can't or won't win.  It just means that the campaign isn't going to get the chance to be as uplifting as we had hoped.

        I want to live in the future, not in the past.

        by Involuntary Exile on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:17:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The media is into it. (0+ / 0-)

          America is sick of it. I heard CNN is trying to get viewers back by promising to be "Wright Free". They beat that horse to death and now they are flogging the carcass.

          If you only counted the big states, Hillary would have won. - Bill Clinton, November 5th, 2008

          by kitebro on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:35:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Totally agree (0+ / 0-)

    Somebody on another message board tried to bamboozle the lot with the Hillary spin of those numbers.  I gave exactly the same argument, although not quite as thoroughly or decisively.  But the point is true, Obama is very electable.

  •  Very disingenuous cherrypick, Kos (0+ / 0-)

    If you're going to go out on a limb and credit the dubious polls suggesting that Texas, Indiana, and North Carolina would be in play, you'd have to apply this broad inclusion of polls evenhandedly and point out that Barack Obama puts New York, Massachusetts, California, and New Jersey at risk.  

    Based solely on polls, you have no basis for dismissing his weaknesses there except to rely on an intuition that tells you they will vote Dem in the fall.  That same intuition should be telling you something about Texas and Indiana as well.

    Shameful.

    •  "shameful?" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew

      I've noticed you Clinton weirdos like to "shame" people a lot. I guess it's her popularity with Catholics, or whatever Oedipal fixation drives you to obsess over that lady.

      Anyway, he's using polling averages, moron.

      And every recent poll shows NY, MA, CA,and NJ just fine for Obama.

      In fact, some recent polls show Obama outperforming Clinton in NJ, CA, and even NY!

      Of course, I'm sure you didn't hear about that at MyDD or whatever cesspool you crawled out of.

      •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

        Oedipal fixation.  I'm gay.  You know, part of yet another one of those demographics that overwhelmingly disfavors Barack Obama.

        I'll concede since I'm not really in an objective territory right now.  Obama will win Texas, Indiana, Montana, Alaska, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and Kansas in a general election.  It's a definite.  

        Tomorrow's the big dead heat Indiana primary "tie-breaker" (according to BO) and anticipated Obama major blowout in North Carolina.  I really hope Clinton can eke out a narrow win in Indiana and would love to see the NC margin under 25%.  

        Oooops, sorry, that was so two weeks ago...

        •  like Clinton's 20 point PA win? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kitebro

          No one asserted Obama will win all of the above states.

          And given that evidence of your delusional state, we can conclude that you are never in objective territory.

          part of yet another one of those demographics that overwhelmingly disfavors Barack Obama.

          Or so you like to tell yourself.

          •  Barack Obama is the candidate who... (0+ / 0-)

            elicits disfavor from gays, women, seniors, Latinos, Jewish Americans, Asian Americans, Catholics, whites, and basically everyone in the country except the AA + Neo-Liberal Coalition.  Things were fluid in February, but now the voting polarization is cemented.  This is what happens when an inexperienced "uniter" like George W. Bush or Barack Obama runs for office.  

            •  Why would Obama elicit disfavor from gays? (0+ / 0-)

              With Hillary's pandering to Scaiffe and O'Reilley?  I have absolutely no clue why this could be.  What did he ever vote for that was anti-gay?  That's as amazing that there are gay Republicans.  

              Why do you necessarily have to be wrong just because a few million people think you are? ~ Frank Zappa

              by alliedoc on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:27:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  attention moronic Clinton trolls (0+ / 0-)

    kos is citing poll averages.

    Thus, he's not cherrypicking.

    Also, please check the polls before you respond with stupid assertions: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

  •  You're delusional! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nellre

    Clinton's team has worn kid gloves.  The Republicans will not.  Cocaine.  Madrasas.  Inexperience.  Headdresses.  Crazy preachers.  That is all we will hear in the months of September and October.  It is conceivable that your golden boy will not win a state.

    •  NAFTA lies. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      flight2q

      Vince Foster. Whitewater. Sexuality rumors (if you think rumors are meaningless, you are delusional). Bill's cheating. Hillary's 54% negative rating that has been unchanged all year. Snipergate (that video would be back in October and it's always fun to see!) Lies about brokering peace in Northern Ireland. The Clinton pardons. The loss of the black vote. The loss of the youth vote. The loss of the independant vote. And much much more. I suppose you think that the media and the GOP will continue to play nice with Hillary. Guess again.

      If you only counted the big states, Hillary would have won. - Bill Clinton, November 5th, 2008

      by kitebro on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:26:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  and Obama has given Clinton a "vetting"? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kitebro

      Talk about delusions...

  •  Ten years ago this month (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nellre

    Michael S. Dukakis is capitalizing on deep public doubts about Vice President Bush and the Reagan Administration's handling of key issues and has emerged as the early favorite for the Presidential election in November, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

    Mr. Dukakis, the probable Democratic nominee, ran ahead of Mr. Bush, the almost certain Republican candidate, by 49 percent to 39 percent among 1,056 registered voters.  The survey, conducted May 9-12, represented a significant advance for Mr. Dukakis since a Times/CBS News Poll in March when Mr. Bush had 46 percent and Mr. Dukakis had 45 percent.

    New York Times, May 17, 1998

    Moral of this story: it's May.  Don't let a poll delude you into nominating Dukakis 2.0.

    •  yeah, that's why we voted against Clinton (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlueInARedState
    •  A Clinton supporter fails history (0+ / 0-)

      I don't remember any Presidential elections in 1998.

      But why am I surprised from yet another poster who wouldn't know Mike Dukakis from Olympia?  They're still toting the two state strategy that worked so convincingly well for Gore and Kerry.  Who will they blame when they lose Ohio and Florida this time?  Nader?  Diebold?  An out-of-work Ken Blackwell?  Uppity Obama supporters?

    •  Oops. Allergy Meds kicking in. (0+ / 0-)

      Twenty years.  Duh.  Thanks for pointing out my typo.

      And I'm not a Clinton supporter.  I liked Bill, Hill not so much.  It's very sad to me that after 8 years of the worst presidency in modern history, these two nobodies are the best we Democrats could come up with.

      I think HRC could have mustered double digits in the Electoral College (Obama will not), but that doesn't make me a Clinton supporter.

      •  If you're not a Clinton supporter then why (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueInARedState

        the "your golden boy" comment?  Plus, most of your other comments.

        Why do Clinton supporters seem to appear and comment only for one session, and then disappear?  Everytime I click on an obvious pro-Clinton comment, I find that the person (supporter) is new just that day?  Do you change your name the next day?

        Why do you necessarily have to be wrong just because a few million people think you are? ~ Frank Zappa

        by alliedoc on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:41:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Add 7. (0+ / 0-)

    Remember the comments about how Obama will probably get a ±7 point bounce when he clearly becomes the nominee? Well EV's range for barely and weak is 5 points. Let's add 5 to each of the categories and see what develops (Heck, even though Clinton won't be the nominee, we'll add 5 to each of her totals):

    Remember: Strong: >10, Weak 5-10, Barely <5. <br>
    Clinton: 244 Strong, 58 Weak, 17 Barely, total: 319.
    Obama: 207 Strong, 68 Weak, 110 Barely, total: 385

    That's a lead of 66 EVs — more than California. That's the 50 state strategy (McCain would only be strong Who's more electable?

  •  Robo-Kos strikes again (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nellre

    The man just can't help himself. All these polls are a joke, but it doesn't both him. Another day, another pointless diary. None of these polls will survive an actual election campaign.

    What happens to your polling data if McCain's cancer comes back? What happens to it if he selects a really effective VP candidate - maybe someone like Bobby Jindal (reported to bein the running)? What happens if there is another huge terrorist attack on the US over the summer? What if gas goes to $4.50 a gallon and Mr. No Taxcut is the nominee?

    So very many things can change during an actual campaign, that any discussion of relative electability is just pointless. Both candidates have roughly equal chances of being elected if nominated. Your tortured data massaging has not and will not change that. But, hey, it's your blog.

    WARNING: I do not support any specific candidate!

    by Anne Elk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:28:19 PM PDT

  •  One problem (0+ / 0-)

    Obama has up 'til the last month enjoyed a nearly free ride with MSM.
    You don't have to believe me. If he's the nom, you'll see for yourselves.

    To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. -Lincoln

    by nellre on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:34:01 PM PDT

  •  Ko's you are so biased it really is sick (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nellre, gavrik
  •  Another aspect of this analysis is who would be.. (0+ / 0-)

    ... able to raise more money for the General Election.  Given the fact that Obama is about to pass 1,500,000 individual donors I think the answer is clear.  He has the ability to raise a lot more money not only to put pressure on McCain in ALL states but as a spill over to help down ticket.

  •  This is one of the worse analysis that i read (0+ / 0-)

    in a long time.

    As they say in SC, you are selecting on the dependent variable here Kos. You are forcing the conclusion. Just look again at your list of swing states and ask yourself: Is New Jersey a swing state? And look at your list of non-swing states: What does it really tell you? Nothing really, except Senator Obama wins Virginia and Senator Clinton wins Arkansas and both of them lose Tx, IN and NC.

    You got to look deeper than that. You got to look at the trends: how do both candidates do with the base? how  do both candidates do with the independents? and how about the republicans, who attract more? Does McCain hold his base better than Senator Clinton or Senator Obama does with democratic base?  This is a nonsensical analysis because it is based on idiotic data.  

    Don't give a damn a/t each & every politician currently alive in the US. Last time i voted for the top part of the ballot was 1972. Never missed SB election

    by Mutual Assured Destruction on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:22:30 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site