Okay, now what? a 50-state Electoral College analysis

I said before the Ohio primary that the big question for superdelegates would be, "did Obama peak in February, and go downhill from there?"  Obama got a huge bump from January through March based upon his incredible charisma, his speaking skills, his freshness and, quite frankly, his not being Hillary.  But the real question was always could he maintain it through November, and the test would be can he maintain it through June.  If it was a wave that would peak, superdelegates are obligated to note that, even if it means going against the pledged delegate count.  Why do I say that?  Because the pledged delegate count is no more democratic than superdelegates.  Both are part of the system, and they mutually support each other.

I know, most of you are already screaming at the screen and looking for the HR button.  But step back and think about it for a second, would you?  Rhetoric like "steal" the nomination is not helpful, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS.  You see, the whole superdelegate system IS part of the system.  It is there to help the Party avoid '72, or even '88, again. It is also there as a counter-balance to the skewed system of selecting pledged delegates, which is NOT based upon popular vote, but weighted to party-build, rewarding Democratic districts with more delegates, giving rural votes more power than urban votes, etc.  

Winning with superdelegates is no more "stealing" than winning with weighted primaries.  I don't see anybody griping that Obama "stole" Nevada, which Clinton won with the popular vote, but Obama won on delegates. Why not?  Because that was the rule.  The superdelegate process is also the rule.

Okay, on to what I hope will be a useful analysis.  I do not know the results as I begin, and will post this even if it goes against Clinton, though I suspect it will not.

I am going to look at states that might actually be in play in November.  I will first exclude states that are not going anywhere, based upon a look at elections from 1980 to present. What follows are Republican percentage numbers from the general election:

Alabama-9

2004-  62
2000-  57
1996-  50
1992-  47
1988-  59
1984-  60
1980-  48

Interesting state, Alabama.  1980 was probably an aberration, since Carter was from neighboring Georgia.  Republicans only missed 50% or more in '92, in a three-way race with a southernor on the Democratic ticket.

Alaska-3

2004-  61
2000-  59
1996-  50
1992-  39 *Perot got 28.  Bush still beat Clinton by 9%.
1988-  59
1984-  66
1980-  54

Alaska is going Republican in 2008.

Arizona-10

2004-  54
2000-  51
1996-  46
1992-  38 *Perot got 23%, Clinton got 36%
1988-  59
1984-  66
1980-  60

McCain is from Arizona. Even though '96 and '92 make it look possible, with McCain on the ticket it is a foregone conclusion.

Georgia-15

2004-  58
2000-  55
1996-  47  *Perot got 6%, Clinton got 45%
1992-  42  Clinton won Georgia
1988-  59
1984-  60
1980-  40  Carter won Georgia

Is Georgia in play?  No, not really.  It can be won by a southernor, but otherwise, not a chance.  It has gotten more stridently Republican, as you can see by the blowouts in '00 and '04.

Idaho-4

2004-  68
2000-  69
1996-  52  *Perot got 12%
1992-  42  *Perot got 27%
1988-  62
1984-  72
1980-  66

Republican.

Indiana-11

2004-  60
2000-  57
1996-  47 *Perot got 10%
1992-  42 *Perot got 20%
1988-  59
1984-  61
1980-  56

Could Evan Bayh on the ticket change Indiana?  No. Probably not.  Anyway, that is only possible with a Clinton nomination, and if she gets it she has to take Obama, to heal the rift in the African American community.

Kansas-6

2004-  62
2000-  58
1996-  54  *Perot got 8%
1992-  38  *Perot got 27%
1988-  55
1984-  66
1980-  57

Something is still the matter with Kansas.

Louisiana-9  

*note - Democratic numbers, because initially I had it in a different section.

2004-  42
2000-  45
1996-  52  *Perot 6
1992-  45  *Perot 11
1988-  44
1984-  38
1980-  45

Is Louisiana really in play?  Clinton's '90s victories say "yes," but I think not.  Louisiana's Democrats are living in Houston and elsewhere.

Mississippi-6

2004-  59
2000-  57
1996-  49  *Perot got 5%
1992-  49  *Perot got 8%
1988-  59
1984-  61
1980-  49  *Reagan won by a hair

Another southern State, reliably red without a Southerner leading the ticket.

Montana-3

2004-  59
2000-  58
1996-  44  *Perot 13
1992-  35  Clinton won, with Perot taking 26
1988-  52
1984-  60
1980-  56

Nope.  Not going to happen.  Sure, Clinton won in '92, but that was purely a Perot issue.  He had one of his best performances here.

Nebraska-5

2004-  66
2000-  63
1996-  53  *Perot 10
1992-  46  *Perot 23
1988-  60
1984-  70
1980-  65

Red.

North Carolina-15

2004-  56
2000-  61
1996-  48  *Perot 6
1992-  43  *Perot 13
1988-  58
1984-  62
1980-  49  *Anderson 2

There is far too much ground to make up in North Carolina.  North Carolina will be red in November.

Oklahoma-7

2004-  65
2000-  60
1996-  48  *Perot 10
1992-  42  *Perot 23
1988-  58
1984-  68
1980-  60

Red.

South Carolina-8

2004-  58
2000-  57
1996-  49  *Perot 6
1992-  48  *Perot 11
1988-  61
1984-  63
1980-  49

South Carolina was only competitive in 1980, with Carter from a neighboring State, though Reagan still won.  Red.

South Dakota-3

2004-  60
2000-  60
1996-  46  *Perot 9
1992-  40  *Perot 21
1988-  52
1984-  63
1980-  60

Texas-34

2004-  61
2000-  59
1996-  48  *Perot 6
1992-  40  *Perot 22
1988-  56
1984-  63
1980-  55

Red.

Utah-5

2004-  71
2000-  67
1996-  54  *Perot 10
1992-  43  *Perot 24
1988-  66
1984-  74
1980-  72

Red.  Red red red.  RED!

Wyoming-3

2004-  66
2000-  69
1996-  49  *Perot 12
1992-  39  *Perot 25
1988-  60
1984-  70
1980-  62

Red.

The above states are just not in play.  Dream if you will, but we do not make up 10-20% from one election to the next.  If winning depends upon winning one of those states, we lose. It's really that simple.

Okay, what about the states we will win, whoever we run?  THese are the Democrat numbers:

California-55

2004-  54
2000-  54
1996-  51  *Perot 6
1992-  46  *Perot 20
1988-  47  *Bush won
1984-  41  *Reagan won
1980-  36  *Reagan won

Can we discount the '80s?  Probably.  Reagan was from California, and Bush was seen as continuing his legacy.  The weak win '92, and again in '96, is of concern, given that McCain is seen (wrongly) by many to be the independent maverick like Perot.  That said, California is firmly blue.

Delaware-3

2004-  53
2000-  55
1996-  52  *Perot 10
1992-  42  *Perot 21
1988-  46  *Bush won
1984-  45
1980-  38  *Anderson 12

I also had Delaware a strong win in my head, until I looked at these numbers.  It is still probably blue, but 1980-1992 give me some pause, paricularly with Perot's strong showing.

Obama won this primary by 10%.  SUSA says they both win, but that poll is two months old now.  With big wins the last four elections, and SUSA's polling, Delaware is still blue.

Hawaii-4

2004-  54
2000-  56
1996-  56  *Perot 7
1992-  48  *Perot 14
1988-  54
1984-  43  *Reagan won
1980-  44  *Anderson 10, Carter still won.

Hawaii is firmly blue.

Illinois-21

2004-  54
2000-  55
1996-  54  *Perot 8
1992-  48  *Perot 16
1988-  48  *Bush won
1984-  42  *Reagan won
1980-  41  * Reagan won

Is Illinois in play? No, not really. Yes, Reagan and Bush I won, but it has been solid in the last four elections.  

Maryland-10

2004-  56
2000-  57
1996-  54  *Perot 6
1992-  49  *Perot 14
1988-  48  *Bush won
1984-  47  *Reagan won
1980-  47  *Anderson 7, Carter won

Blue.

Massachusetts-12

2004-  62
2000-  60
1996-  52  *Perot 10
1992-  42  *Perot 21
1988-  46  *Bush won
1984-  38  *Reagan won
1980-  38  *Reagan won

Yes, Republicans won in the '80s, and Perot was strong.  However, two straight performances over 60% mean this is blue.  They can no more make up a 20% swing in one election than we can.

Michigan-17

2004-  49
2000-  51
1996-  48  *Perot 10
1992-  41  *Perot 21
1988-  51
1984-  45
1980-  43  *Anderson 7, Reagan won

This was incredibly close in '04, surprisingly close.  That said, I'm sticking with the "if Dukakis won it, we can't lose it" theme.

Minnesota-10

2004-  51
2000-  48  *Nader 5, the bastard
1996-  51  *Perot 11
1992-  43  *Perot 24
1988-  53
1984-  49  *Mondale from Minnesota
1980-  49  *Mondale from Minnesota

We keep winning it, even with Dukakis.  Minnesota will always run close, but blue.

New Jersey-15

2004-  55
2000-  56
1996-  54  *Perot 6
1992-  49  *Perot 14
1988-  48  *Bush won
1984-  47  *Reagan won
1980-  47  *Anderson 7

Blue.  Yes, Republicans always think it's in play.  New Jersey polls funny. Jersey is safely blue.

New York-31

2004-  58
2000-  60
1996-  59  *Perot 8
1992-  49  *Perot 15
1988-  51
1984-  45  *Reagan won
1980-  43  *Reagan won

Blue.

Rhode Island-4

2004-  59
2000-  61
1996-  59  *Perot 11
1992-  42  *Perot 21
1988-  55
1984-  48  *Reagan won
1980-  47  *Anderson 14

Blue.

Vermont-3

2004-  59
2000-  51
1996-  53  *Perot 12
1992-  46  *Perot 22
1988-  47
1984-  40
1980-  38  *Anderson 15

You can't call Vermont "in play," not when the Republicans would have to make up a 20% deficit from the last election.

Washington-11

2004-  52
2000-  50
1996-  49  *Perot 9
1992-  43  *Perot 23
1988-  50
1984-  42  *Reagan won
1980-  37 *Anderson 10, Reagan won

We are not going to lose a state Dukakis won. We won the last 5 elections in Washington.  It only looked close in '00 because Nader and Browne took 5% of the vote.  Washington is blue.  

Washington DC-3

2004-  89
2000-  86
1996-  85
1992-  84
1988-  82
1984-  85
1980-  75

Blue.

Okay, so what states are actually in play, who won them in the primary/caucus, and who is the stronger candidate in November? The following are Democratic numbers:

Arkansas-6

2004-  44
2000-  45
1996-  53  *Perot 8
1992-  53  *Perot 10
1988-  42  *Bush won
1984-  38  *Bush won
1980-  47  *Anderson 2, Reagan won by less than 1%

Arkansas is a state in play, but only with Clinton leading the ticket.  Arkansas has 6 electoral votes.  

C-6 O-0

Connecticut-7

2004-  54
2000-  56
1996-  52  *Perot 10
1992-  42  *Perot 21
1988-  46  *Bush won
1984-  38
1980-  38

I assumed Connecticut was safe, but had to move it.  We lost all three elections in the '80s, and the first two were huge blowouts.  Perot also performed very strongly there, and McCain will appeal to some of those people.  Frankly, I still consider it blue, but by this analysis has to be in the "in play" section.   Obama is far more likely to win Connecticut.  

C-6 O-7

Colorado-9

2004-  47
2000-  42
1996-  44  *Perot 6
1992-  40  *Perot 23
1988-  42  *Bush won
1984-  35  *Reagan won a blowout
1980-  31  *Anderson 11, Reagan won

Colorado would be strongly red but for the Perot-aided Clinton wins.  This bodes ill for us in November, and my personal opinion is that Colorado is not in play.  Perhaps holding our Convention there will help.

Obama blew Clinton away in a caucus.  A GOP poll says McCain leads Clinton there, 52%-40%, and he leads Obama, 51%-39%.  Sure, it's a GOP poll, so take with a whole shaker of salt.  That said, we just can't count on Colorado no matter who our candidate.  Who is MORE likely to turn this red state blue?  Obama.  Score so far?

C-6 O-16

Florida-27

2004-  47
2000-  49
1996-  48  *Perot 9
1992-  39  *Perot 19, Bush won
1988-  38
1984-  34
1980-  38

The ultimate swing state and the biggest state in play.  Clinton can win it.  Obama.

C-33 O-16

Iowa-7

2004-  49  *Bush won
2000-  49
1996-  50  *Perot 8
1992-  43  *Perot 18
1988-  54
1984-  45  *Reagan won
1980-  38  *Anderson 8, Reagan won

Obama won a 5-way caucus.  Every poll available says Obama wins it and Clinton loses it.

C-33 O-23

Kentucky-8

2004-  59
2000-  57
1996-  45  *Perot got 8, Clinton got 44
1992-  41  *Clinton won
1988-  55
1984-  60
1980-  49

Is Kentucky in play?  Based on '96, '92, and '80, perhaps, but only with a Southerner leading the ticket.  But with 57% and 59% most recently, it's hard to call this anything but a red state.  On the other hand, can you discount a State Clinton actually won, if Clinton is heading the ticket?  No.  I don't think so.

Clinton is on her way to a blowout in Kentucky.  She is also within the margin of error against McCain in the latest polling.  Advantage Clinton.  

C-41 O-23

Maine-4

2004-  53
2000-  49  *Nader 6
1996-  51  *Perot 14
1992-  38  *Perot 30
1988-  43  *Bush won
1984-  38  *Reagan won
1980-  42  *Anderson 10, Reagan won

Yikes. I thought Maine was safe, but with three BIG Republican wins in the '80s, plus Perot's strongest showing, this is a tough race.  Obama won huge there, by 19.  

C-41 O-27

Missouri-11

2004-  49  *Bush won
2000-  47
1996-  47  *Perot 10
1992-  44  *Perot 21
1988-  47
1984-  40
1980-  44

Obama won the primary by a statistically insignificant margin.  On the other hand,
SUSA says Clinton can win it, but Obama can't.  What value polls this far out?  Not much, not when they are this close.  Call this one a wash and split the delegates with the extra to Clinton.

C-47 O-32

Nevada-5

2004-  47
2000-  46
1996-  44  *Perot 9
1992-  37  *Perot 26
1988-  38
1984-  32
1980-  26

Clinton is the only Democrat to win Nevada in thirty years, and only in very close three-way elections. Hillary won the popular vote but Obama got one more delegate. Right now, polls say Obama is stronger.  I'm going to put my thumb on the scale for this close one, for Obama, lest people say I'm cheating for Hillary.  

C-47 O-37

New Hampshire-4

2004-  50
2000-  47  *Bush won
1996-  49  *Perot 9
1992-  39  *Perot 22
1988-  36
1984-  31
1980-  28  *Anderson 13

New Hampshire is clearly a battleground state, though it only brings 4 electoral votes.  Clinton bested Obama by 2% in a four-way contest, so that's really a draw.  Polls right now make it a soft McCain state, with Obama performing better than Clinton.  

C-47 O-41

New Mexico-5

2004-  49  *Bush won
2000-  48  *Gore won
1996-  49  *Perot 8
1992-  36  *Perot 24, Bush won
1988-  47
1984-  39
1980-  36  *Anderson 6

This is a true battleground state.  Clinton won the primary by one percentage point.  Big deal.  
Polling flips back and forth as to who makes the better candidate.  Split the five delegates, and give Clinton the extra for winning the primary.  

C-50 O-43

Ohio-20

2004-  48  *Bush "won."  Yeah, right. I was there.  Games were played.
2000-  46
1996-  47  *Perot 10
1992-  40  *Perot 21
1988-  44
1984-  40
1980-  41  *Anderson 6

Nobody doubts Ohio is a big battleground state. It also brings 20 electoral votes to the table.  Clinton won big in the primary.  She is also polling better than Obama.  SUSA's most recent poll has her over McCain by eleven, but Obama down two.  Advantage Clinton.  

C-70 O-43

Oregon-7

2004-  51
2000-  47  *Nader 5, the bastard.  Gore won.
1996-  47  *Perot 8
1992-  42  *Perot 24
1988-  51
1984-  43
1980-  38  *Anderson 10

Under the "we won't lose a state Dukakis won" theory, Oregon is a lock. However, it has been uncomfortably close lately, so we'll call it in play.  They won't go to the polls until May 20.  It is almost a blue lock, but not quite.  With
Obama it is a lock, but not quite with Hillary, so give this one to Obama.  
C-70 O-50

Pennsylvania-21

2004-  51
2000-  51
1996-  49  *Perot 9
1992-  45  *Perot 18
1988-  48  *Bush won
1984-  46
1980-  42  *Anderson 6, Reagan won

Republicans won all the races in the '80s, we won since then.  However, our wins in '00 and '04 were within 5 points.  Clinton and Obamaboth lead in every poll but Strategic Vision.  I am tempted to keep this in the "in play" column and give Clinton another 21 points, because I think McCain can really make it competitive.  The difference between Pennsylvania and other states like Michigan and Minnesota is that Dukakis lost.  He won in the other states.  

C-91 O-50

Tennessee-11

2004-  42
2000-  48
1996-  45  *Perot 5
1992-  47  *Perot 10
1988-  41
1984-  41
1980-  48  *Reagan won by 3/10%

Clinton won twice, Carter barely lost, and Gore came close (but is a favorite son candidate).  Is Tennessee really in play?  We won it in two of the last four elections.  Of course it is.  Hillary won big in the primary.  Every poll but one calls it a McCain blow-out.  Hillary, however, outperforms Obama there by a mile.  

C-102 O-50

Virginia-13

2004-  45
2000-  45
1996-  45  *Perot 6
1992-  40  *Perot 13
1988-  39
1984-  37
1980-  40  *Anderson 5

Is Virginia trending Democratic?  Republican numbers are sure down from the 80s.  On the other hand, the last Democrat to win Virginia was LBJ. I think this goes red in November, but I'll keep it "in play" for now.  Obama MIGHT be able to put it in play.  Clinton can't.  

C-102 O-63

West Virginia-5

2004-  43
2000-  46
1996-  51  *Perot 11
1992-  48  *Perot 16
1988-  52
1984-  44
1980-  49  *Anderson 4, Carter won

Clinton x2 and Carter won, but we would have to make up 13% from the last election.  That is a tough nut to crack, but call it "in play," with 3 of the last 7.  Clinton is going to blow Obama away in the primary, and polls ahead of McCain, while Obama can't even see him in the distance.

C-107 O-63

Wisconsin-10

2004-  49  *Kerry won
2000-  48  *Gore won
1996-  48  *Perot 10
1992-  41  *Perot 21
1988-  51
1984-  45
1980-  43  *Anderson 7, Reagan won  

Yes, Dukakis won.  On the other hand, the last two elections have been less than a single percentage point apart.  This is in play.  Obama blew Clinton's doors off in the primary and outcompetes her against McCain.  

C-107 O-73

Okay, so how does this all shape up?

The Republican states account for 156 electoral votes.  The Democratic states account for 199 electoral votes.  Now, throw in the "in play" states, and the final tally with Clinton is Clinton - 306, McCain 229.  With Obama, the final tally is Obama 272, McCain 263.  

Let's go, again, state by state:

Alabama-9  
McCain 9 Clinton 0  /  McCain 9 Obama 0

Alaska-3  
McCain 12 Clinton 0  /  McCain 12 Obama 0

Arizona-10  
McCain 19 Clinton 0  /  McCain 19 Obama 0

California-55
McCain 19 Clinton 55 / McCain 19 Obama 55

Delaware-3
McCain 19 Clinton 58 / McCain 19 Obama 58

Georgia-15
McCain 34 Clinton 58 / McCain 34 Obama 58

Hawaii-4
McCain 34 Clinton 62 / McCain 34 Obama 62

Idaho-4
McCain 38 Clinton 62 / McCain 38 Obama 62

Illinois-21
McCain 38 Clinton 83 / McCain 38 Obama 83

Indiana-11
McCain 49 Clinton 83 / McCain 49 Obama 83

Kansas-6
McCain 55 Clinton 83 / McCain 55 Obama 83

Louisiana-9
McCain 64 Clinton 83 / McCain 64 Obama 83

Maryland-10
McCain 64 Clinton 93 / McCain 64 Obama 93

Massachusetts-12
McCain 64 Clinton 105 / McCain 64 Obama 105

Michigan-17
McCain 64 Clinton 122 / McCain 64 Obama 122

Minnesota-10
McCain 64 Clinton 132 / McCain 64 Obama 132

Mississippi-6
McCain 70 Clinton 132 / McCain 70 Obama 132

Montana-3
McCain 73 Clinton 132 / McCain 73 Obama 132

Nebraska-5
McCain 78 Clinton 132 / McCain 78 Obama 132

New Jersey-15
McCain 78 Clinton 147 / McCain 78 Obama 147

New York-31
McCain 78 Clinton 178 / McCain 78 Obama 178

North Carolina-15
McCain 93 Clinton 178 / McCain 93 Obama 178

Oklahoma-7
McCain 100 Clinton 178 / McCain 100 Obama 178

Rhode Island-4
McCain 100 Clinton 182 / McCain 100 Obama 182

South Carolina-8
McCain 108 Clinton 182 / McCain 108 Obama 182

South Dakota-3
McCain 111 Clinton 182 / McCain 111 Obama 182

Texas-34
McCain 145 Clinton 182 / McCain 145 Obama 182

Utah-5
McCain 150 Clinton 182 / McCain 150 Obama 182

Vermont-3
McCain 150 Clinton 185 / McCain 150 Obama 185

Washington-11
McCain 150 Clinton 196 / McCain 150 Obama 196

Washington DC-3
McCain 150 Clinton 199 / McCain 150 Obama 199

Wyoming-3
McCain 153 Clinton 199 / McCain 153 Obama 199

Now add in the states that are only barely likely to be swing states:

Kentucky-8
McCain 161 Clinton 199 / McCain 161 Obama 199

Maine-4
McCain 161 Clinton 203 / McCain 161 Obama 203

Pennsylvania-21
McCain 161 Clinton 224 / McCain 161 Obama 224

Tennessee-11
McCain 172 Clinton 224 / McCain 172 Obama 224

West Virginia-5
McCain 177 Clinton 224 / McCain 177 Obama 224

and now for the real swing states.  These fall into three different categories, only Clinton can win, only Obama can win, either can win.  First, only Obama can win:

Iowa-7
McCain 184 Clinton 224 / McCain 177 Obama 231

Oregon-7
McCain 191 Clinton 224 / McCain 177 Obama 238

Virginia-13
McCain 204 Clinton 224 / McCain 177 Obama 251
*Virginia is going red, but at least Obama is occasionally near the margin of error.

Okay, now for the states only Clinton can win:

Arkansas-6
McCain 204 Clinton 230 / McCain 185 Obama 251

Florida-27
McCain 204 Clinton 257 / McCain 212 Obama 251

In all fairness, I need to put Colorado in the "Obama can, Hillary can't" column:

Colorado-9
McCain 213 Clinton 257 / McCain 212 Obama 260

Either one can win Connecticut, but Obama is a lot stronger:

Connecticut-7
McCain 220 Clinton 257 / McCain 212 Obama 267

They're both going to win Maine:

Maine-4
McCain 220 Clinton 261 / McCain 212 Obama 271

Missouri has to go in the "only Clinton can win it" column.  She is ahead in the latest SUSA poll, and Obama can't even see the finish line:

Missouri-11
McCain 220 Clinton 272 / McCain 223 Obama 271

They both win Nevada

Nevada-5
McCain 220 Clinton 277 / McCain 223 Obama 276

New Hampshire is very pink right now.  Obama has a better shot than Clinton at making it blue:

New Hampshire-4
McCain 224 Clinton 277 / McCain 223 Obama 280

New Mexico will go red with McCain from next door:

New Mexico-5
McCain 229 Clinton 277 / McCain 228 Obama 280

Wisconsin will go blue:

Wisconsin-10
McCain 229 Clinton 287 / McCain 229 Obama 290

And that leaves Ohio.  What a surprise, eh?  Clinton is simly stronger in Ohio.  Obama has only polled ahead of McCain once this year there, by one point, in a PPP poll.  After yesterday, well, that means pretty much nothing.

Ohio-20
McCain 229 Clinton 307 / McCain 249 Obama 290

Conclusion:

Both candidates can win in November.  In a 50-state analysis, Clinton is the stronger electoral candidate.  The superdelegates can do the same analysis, and are doing it right now.  I predict that they will force a Clinton-Obama ticket, with Obama tasked to keep his troops calm and in the fold.  I know everybody likes the idea of a "50 state strategy," but that just doesn't work so well with the Electoral College.  The truth is there is, at best, an 18 state strategy, because the rest are just not in play.

•  Tip Jar

  because that's how it's done.

  by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:04:28 PM PDT

  •  What about the split of Nebraska's EVs?

    They allocate some by CD, and we've come close in the past.

    by pat208 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:09:52 PM PDT

    •  That is a very good point

      and there is another states that does that as well.  Thank you.

      by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:15:03 PM PDT

      •  Maine also does this, but...

        ... I think we will win all CDs there, hence all EVs.

        by pat208 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:16:13 PM PDT

        •  Maine allocates its differently

          To get all 4 of them you have to have 62.5% of the vote, not that one delegate matters much, but Clinton cannot do this. Also quite a few states are winnable for Obama, but lost causes for Clinton. They are Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Alaska and the most ridiculous shockers of all North Carolina, and Virginia. Polls show Obama and McCain in a virtual tie (O leads some and so does JM by less than 5). Lastly, according to Rasmussen Clinton is behind in MI polling against McCain. Obama is too, but by smaller margins. I'm just sayin'.

          by BetMyCitizenship on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:36:21 PM PDT

          •  And NM and NV

            by BetMyCitizenship on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:41:58 PM PDT

          •  Nope

            Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin and Minnesota are far from "lost causes" for Clinton.  The latest SUSA polls have her ahead of McCain in three, and tied in Wisconsin.  

            by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:43:52 PM PDT

            •  And other polls for a longer period of time?

              The latest SUSA polls

              Of course they're not "lost causes" for her, but your diary is all about relative strength. She is relatively weaker than Obama in that region, based on a more comprehensive look at the facts.

              by pat208 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:51:47 PM PDT

          •  This is wrong

            you need to win each CD by 50+1.

            Clinton might lose one.

            by fladem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:57:08 PM PDT

    •  Not that close!

      by davybaby on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:30:44 PM PDT

  •  If only

    you had massaged the data somewhat and arrived at the opposite conclusion, your tip jar would have overflowed (500+) and this would be on the rec list in a heartbeat.  Some of the choice quotes would be:

    'Fantastic Analysis'
    'If Hillary does not step aside after reading this, I would be shocked'
    'Hillary is bent on destroying the party. I am sure her analysts have done this same analysis'

    ... and so-on.

    I still think this could go either way, but your overall conclusion does not take a few wildcards into account:

    a) Clinton probably inspires a much higher republican turnout than Obama which could swing Florida away

    b) With the economy in doldrums I am not convinced Obama can't take Ohio by pounding on NAFTA

    c) Obama can win New Mexico easier than Clinton can - she burned her bridges with Richardson

    There are other nuances / uncertainties but you are fundamentally correct - this thing comes down to who can put FL, PA, OH and CT strongly in the D column

    by cynic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:51:34 PM PDT

    •  Thank you n/t

      by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:53:12 PM PDT

  •  This substantially underplays

    the Clinton weakness in the West and Upper Widwest. It ignores recent polling in Michigan showing Obama outperforming Clinton, and polling in Minnesota showing Obama stronger and Clinton in trouble (in state where we have won by less than 5).

    It takes an absurdly optimistic view in Tennessee (we ain't winning it) but takes the appropriate view in NC (even though Obama is tied in the last poll)

    So what is the right view?
    Clinton clearly puts in play 2 states that Obama does not: West Virginia and Arkansas. (total 11 EV's).  She runs better in Ohio (20 EV's, but PA they run about even in) and in Florida (though I think she loses).  She probably loses Oregon and may lose Washington, and will struggle in Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin (27 EV's).  She might might run better in Mo (11).

    Bottom line, because she is likely to lose several states Gore won (upper midwest, pacific northwest) she will HAVE to win both Ohio and Florida.  Her field of play is more limited than either Gore's or Kerry's, though she has a shot to partially offset this in Arkansas and West Virginia.

    Obama holds the upper midwest and pacific northwest easily.  He appears to win NH and Michigan so he starts about where Kerry did.  He puts in play NM  and leads in CO.  Hopes for VA are fading, and I put no stock in NC even though its tied.  Obama will need to win either Ohio or CO and NM to get to 270.

    McCain is clearly the favorite, and becoming ever more dangerous with every negative ad.  

    by fladem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:55:38 PM PDT

    •  I took Tennessee out of the final tally

      and gave more credit to historical trends than present polling, given the divisiveness of the present campaign and the tendency of the Party to come together prior to the GE.

      by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:59:07 PM PDT

      •  You obviously were not active in

        1980.

        I see no reason to think the party will be magically healed. I see just the opposite, and the behavior of activists on DKOS and MYDD is one reason why.

        This will be the lesson of this cycle: there are consequences to are actions.  And those who have been quick to label supporters of other candidates idiots or morons and repeat personal attacks that originate on drudge will hang there heads in shame like the nader voters of 2000.

        by fladem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:04:26 PM PDT

  •  Couldn't sleep last night huh?

    Great diary tho.

    by StormBear on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:59:33 PM PDT

  •  Superb job!

    Thank you.

    by davybaby on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:29:36 PM PDT

•  Wishful thinking ain't gonna make it so.

  I predict that they will force a Clinton-Obama ticket, with Obama tasked to keep his troops calm and in the fold.

  The Clinton Campaign is of the walking dead. We're just waiting for the body to thud.

  Or, less viscerally, this is a delegate race, and Obama will have the most delegates when all is said and done.

  by haruki on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:09:12 PM PDT

  •  This Analysis Is So Off It's Funny...

    ... Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, Florida -- toss-ups favoring Clinton?  

    Clinton winning Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin?

    More Kool-Aid, please.

    by Triangulate on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:05:44 PM PDT

    •  Well, she'd win IL no problem.

      Strong blue, local ties. (As long as Obama is gracious in defeat; he's not GOING to be defeated, mind you, but if he were, I'm guessing he'd be gracious.)

      Arkansas polls go both ways. I'd have no trouble giving her that one.

      Florida polls also split, but have been leaning more McCain's way. That one's sketchy for us this year, and the popular GOP governor will pull out all the stops to keep it out of our hands in 08.

      The rest of the border states are solid Red, I agree. KY, TN and WV are highly unlikely to be competitive for the foreseeable future.

      by pat208 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:09:14 PM PDT

    •  You didn't read to the end,

      did you?  I took out Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia.  As for the last four, yes, they will go blue with either candidate.

      by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:14:20 PM PDT

•  you forgot at least one state

  Where's North Dakota?

  by msc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:09:33 PM PDT

  •  The least-visited state in the union will go Red.

    by pat208 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:15:24 PM PDT

  •  Just above South Dakota

    as I recall. Oops.  Thanks.  It's red.

    by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:15:46 PM PDT

    •  Obama's led or tied McCain in all polls there

      and it's red?

      by DemocraticLuntz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:19:53 PM PDT

      •  We're not going to make up

        27 points in one election cycle.  Show me any time that has happened and I will consider changing my mind.

        by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:31:06 PM PDT

        •  There have been >20 points swings before

          West Virginia went from +15 Dem to + 6 GOP from 1996 to 2000. It didn't even border a home state for either candidate.

          by johnsonwax on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:43:41 PM PDT

          •  What?

            1996:

            Clinton - 51
            Dole 36
            Perot 11

            2000:

            Bush 51
            Gore 45

            Most of your Perot supporters were RIGHT of Dole.  There was a 6 point Democratic swing, a FIFTEEN point Republican swing, plus 11 percent Perot voters.  Sorry, that example doesn't work out because of the Perot factor.

            by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:47:23 PM PDT

            •  Ah, fair enough.

              I don't agree that Perot supporters were necessarily right of Dole, but I'll concede that Perot does screw it up regardless. Sorry I missed that.

              by johnsonwax on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:58:19 PM PDT

        •  I appreciate the effort here.

          But I'm not willing to accept an analysis that wholly ignores the race as it currently stands.  You may be right that the points can't be made up in one cycle.  

          But then when have we had a President as cataclysmically bad as W.  Moreover Obama is a unique candidate in at least some ways (I understand that you don't find him as unique as I and others here do).  

          Finally, of the races you looked at, this is the first that does not involve either an incumbent President or a sitting Vice President.  I don't know what effect it has on the race.  But the confluence of factors here suggests to me that current polling is entitled to more weight, even if it is a long way out.

          by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:53:13 PM PDT

          •  If current polling is entitled to more weight

            this analysis actually gets stronger, not weaker.

            by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:54:01 PM PDT

            •  I'd be interested in seeing that analysis

              from your perspective.

              by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:10:13 PM PDT

        •  In 1992, Bill Clinton did it in

          Arkansas.

          Other states where there was a 15+ swing
          Maine: 20 points
          Wyoming: 17 points
          California: 17 points
          Arizona: 19 points
          Florida: 21 points
          Delaware: 20 points
          Georgia: 21 points
          Illinois: 16 points
          KY: 15 points
          MD: 17
          NH: 25
          VT: 18
          NJ: 16
          NC: 15
          SC: 16
          TN: 21
          UT: 15
          VA: 16
          WY: 17

          In 1996, Clinton improved 15 points in New Jersey,

          In 2000, Bush improved 20 points in Louisiana over Dole, 17 points in Texas, 22 points in Arkansas, 14 points in Alaska, 22 points in Montana, 21 points in Idaho, 19 points in Utah, 21 points in North Dakota, 20 points in South Dakota, 16 points in Kentucky, 27 points in Wyoming,

          In 1988, Dukakis improved 21 points over Mondale in Kansas, 21 points in Nebraska, 17 points in Iowa, 20 points in Idaho, 17 points in North Dakota, 21 points in South Dakota, 22 points in Oklahoma, 16 in Utah, 16 in Missouri, 22 in Hawaii.

          In 1984, Reagan improved 35 points in Georgia, 23 in Mississippi 21 in Alabama, 27 in South Carolina, 22 in North Carolina, 20 in Arkansas.

          In 1980, Reagan improved 19 in Georgia, 22 in Florida, 30 in Arkansas, 15 in California, 19 in Idaho, 16 in Massachusetts, 17 in Montana, 18 in Nebraska, 31 in Nevada, 18 in New Hampshire, 25 in Oklahoma, ...

          In 1976, Carter improved 68 in Arkansas, 62 in Alabama, 84 in Georgia, 49 in Florida, 56 in South Carolina, 61 in Mississippi, 43 in Mississippi, 48 in Oklahoma, 31 in Maryland, 44 in West Virginia, 36 in Kentucky, 28 in Missouri, 37 in Texas,

          by DemocraticLuntz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:03:29 PM PDT

          •  No

            because you are not taking Perot into account:

            Arkansas
            88- Bush 56, Dukakis 42
            92- Clinton 53, Bush 35, Perot 10

            It was an 11 point Democratic pickup.  The bigger Republican swing was because of the three-way race.

            Main
            88- Bush 55, Dukakis 43
            92- Clinton 38, Bush 30, Perot 30

            In fact, Democrats LOST 5 points here.  The big number was the Perot number.

            Etc., etc., etc.

            by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:11:47 PM PDT

            •  Yeah, and what accounts for 1976?

              Or 1980?  Or 1984?

              Sorry, DemocraticLuntz is more convincing than you.

              by neroden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:21:40 PM PDT

              •  You know what?

                I am completely willing to be wrong, and to be corrected.  Do I think we will see the same things today, in a more partisan environment?  No, I do not.  Do I also think that the election of Carter was a backlash to Watergate, and Reagan a big flip the other way, something we are not likely to see again in our lifetimes?  Yes, I do.  But DemocraticLuntz is correct, there have been swings that big in the past.

                by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:37:35 PM PDT

                •  Ah, there's the difference in our analyses.

                  "Do I also think that the election of Carter was a backlash to Watergate, and Reagan a big flip the other way, something we are not likely to see again in our lifetimes?  Yes, I do."

                  As I noted below, I think a big backlash against Bush, comparable to the post-Watergate backlash, is happening as we speak.  Anyone could have taken advantage of it, Obama managed to, but Clinton somehow is managing not to.  :-(  

                  We may get a nasty reversal in four years just like in 1980 (though I hope not).

                  Thanks for the interesting diary even though I don't think it's actually a very useful analysis in a year when Alaska (!?!) is electing Democrats.  :-)

                  by neroden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:42:02 PM PDT

                  •  You are welcome

                    the good thing about it is, broken up state by state, you can take the pieces of it you find credible and workable, and go from there.  

                    I responded to the 1976-2008 comparison below.

                    by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:45:00 PM PDT

    •  And just below Manitoba!

      by davybaby on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:25:26 PM PDT

•  The Point is Not to Win, but To Fight

  That is the essense of the 50-state strategy, particularly in a year that has seen such discontent with the GOP. Your analysis points us right back to the losing strategies of 2000 and 2004 - narrow victories possible only, with the real chance of losing.

  With a true 50-state strategy, neither Obama nor Clinton may win a Colorado or a Georgia, but could do well enough to force McCain to fight for it. That leaves McCain far fewer resources to fight in the real swing states, so the Dems pick those up.

  by CPT Doom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:09:34 PM PDT

  •  Colorado is in play

    For Obama is at least.

    by iowabosox on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:11:10 PM PDT

  •  I think the point is to do both.

    This year, we need to open up the map.

    This builds the party in many ways, for many years to come.

    It also takes the fight to more states, increasing the ways we can get to 270, and forcing them to defend from coast to coast.

    by pat208 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:20:38 PM PDT

•  Past trends don't matter so much

  With an incumbent president with approval ratings in the 20s, gas near $4, and an unpopular war (or, on the other hand, the terra incognita of a black or female nominee).

  Lots of states are changing demographically as well...even just since 2004 (Virginia is a case in point).

  So I don't know how much value numbers from the 80s have in this case.

  by iowabosox on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:10:29 PM PDT

  •  Not as much as recent numbers

    unless they show something significant.  But if they are consistent with what is happening in the last few elections, they do show a trend.

    by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:16:53 PM PDT

•  Why is HRC electable after her Tuzla lie?

  Clinton scandals/controversies are yet to get a good dress down this cycle, whereas Obama's baggage (real/perceived) has been vetted out quite a bit.

  Republicans will unleash Clinton ones should we make the mistake of nominating her.

  Everything aside, HRC is unelectable, because of her Tuzla lie:
  

  by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:10:46 PM PDT

  •  Here's what McCain will say

    "My friends...I don't need to make up stories about being under fire. I've been there, my friends."

    by iowabosox on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:11:50 PM PDT

  •  i ask the diarist seriously:

    Could you please explain how HRC can possibly win the general election after getting caught telling a gross and bald-faced lie with the Tuzla story. What really would be her strategy to wiggle out of this lie should she be nominated?

    by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:15:36 PM PDT

    •  I will answer just as seriously

      it did not hurt her in Pennsylvania.  It will certainly not be more damaging to her among the swing-voters, the old "Reagan Democrats" than the videos of Wright that the Republicans will be showing 24/7.

      by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:18:14 PM PDT

      •  Obama didn't make a big deal about it

        and Democrats are generally forgiving. I wouldn't count on the same in the general election with Indies and crossover Republicans after it has been fully exploited by the RWNM in far harsher terms.

        Wright is a different individual; he and Obama don't speak for each other. OTOH, HRC directly lied here.

        by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:20:49 PM PDT

      •  It didn't hurt her in PA because

        no one made an ad out of it.  No one is blasting her for it.  That's the problem with the Clinton being electable problem.  Hillary doesn't hesitate to draw the knives out on Obama.  

        Anywho, no one is going to force Obama at the bottom of any ticket.  He'll say thank but no thanks and run for governor here in IL w/ an eye to 2012.  The Democrats won't do it.  

        by Hope08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:22:25 PM PDT

        •  I think he might have

          accepted a VP spot under Gore, had Gore run.  If you combine Dean's fifty-state strategy with Gore's Assault on Reason, you basically end up with Obama's guiding principles.

          Note: I'm not saying it could happen now, because primary voters have too much invested to accept a white guy being nominated at the convention, even if it is our real honored elder.  But a lot of us wanted a Gore/Obama ticket precisely because it would have been a much smoother path to where we should be going as a party, addressing the travesty of 2000, the lunacy of invading Iraq, our pervasive and interconnected energy problems, and the need to build a 21st-century party.

          by latts on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:41:25 PM PDT

        •  Obama isn't going to go negative

          He can't really - even if he wanted to.  First, that's not his kind of politics.  Second, he wants the votes of her supporters in November.  The Clintons have no similar compunctions.  It's all about them.  Apres moi le deluge...

          by chuckvw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:48:20 PM PDT

  •  How Can She Win if She Can't Win...

    ...the black vote?

    How can she win if she can't win the youth vote?

    How can she win if she wants to disenfranchise all people who live in Caucus states?

    How can she win if she can't win Illinois, or Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, Iowa, Washington, Wisconsin, Maryland, Minnesota, Hawaii...
    [/Clinton arguments turned inside out]

    by DHinMI on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:55:42 PM PDT

    •  please see the end of the diary

      Both candidates can win in November.  In a 50-state analysis, Clinton is the stronger electoral candidate.  The superdelegates can do the same analysis, and are doing it right now.  I predict that they will force a Clinton-Obama ticket, with Obama tasked to keep his troops calm and in the fold.

      by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:57:41 PM PDT

•  Clinton is weak in MN, MI, WI, IA. Red if HRC.

  Obama would win there, as well as NM, CO, NV.

  Obama can't match Clinton and win OH, but she won't pick up FL.

  So, by my math, the total EVs favor Obama over Clinton.

  by pat208 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:12:21 PM PDT

  •  And here are a couple of sites to play with:

    1. Kossack Poblano's geekfest of a site, in which he does simulations of EVs based on polls, not past history.

    2. A place to play out EV scenarios, save them, and have the site do the EV math.

    by pat208 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:14:53 PM PDT

  •  Not really

    Minnesota:

    SUSA 4/11-4/13    O-49 M-43 / C-47 M-46
    Rasmussen 3/19    O-47 M-43 / C-46 M-47
    SUSA 3/14-3/16    O-46 M-47 / C-49 M-46

    Michigan

    Rasmussen 3/25    O-42 M-43 | C-42 M-45
    Rasmussen 3/10    O-41 M-44 | C-43 M-46
    SUSA 2/26-2/28    O-46 M-45 | C-44 M-44

    Wisconsin

    SUSA 4/11-4/13    O-49 M-44 | C-46 M-46
    WPR/St. Northbert College 3/25-4/5
                     O-46 M-42 | C-42 M-46
    Rasmussen 3/26    O-46 M-48 | C-39 M-50
    SUSA 3/14-3/16    O-48 M-44 | C-46 M-45

    Note, please, I already said Iowa was Obama's to win, in the diary.

    by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:23:23 PM PDT

    •  A broader base of polls shows the opposite.

      See my ref earlier to Poblano's site.

      The latest polls (during HRC's mudfest in PA) have shown a tightening of the two Democratic candidates' EV totals, but even so Obama has demonstrated a much wide geographic base than Clinton's over a much longer period.

      by pat208 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:50:10 PM PDT

•  So what you're basically arguing is

  "No, we can't"

  That's the same defeatist attitude that has brought us electoral loss after electoral loss.  Thanks but no thanks.  I think 2006 showed that the 50 state strategy can and does work.  I think 2000 and 2004 showed us that the 20 state strategy does not work.  I know it's so comforting to fall back on the familiar blankey of our past (losing) strategies, but the rest of the world is moving forward.

  And there's not much point in giving Obama the second spot on the ticket (assuming the party does steal--yes, steal--the nomination from him)--that isn't going to appease those who would not vote for Clinton.  If anything, I'd wager it would just outrage them more.  I know it would outrage me.

  by costello7 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:14:37 PM PDT

  •  2006 was not fought in the Electoral College

    and no, I am not saying "no, we can't." In fact, I say both can win in the Electoral College, but that Clinton is stronger.

    by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:24:08 PM PDT

  •  i don't think he said that

    the final tally with Clinton is Clinton - 306, McCain 229.  With Obama, the final tally is Obama 272, McCain 263.

    The analysis has some rough edges one could argue with, but the approach is spot on.

    It is the problem stemming from the electoral college system:  kicking Clinton's butt in Georgia does not get Georgia in the D column come november. Not a chance.

    Like it or not, Clinton is winning the states that matter - in the electoral college for a Dem victory in 2008.

    Having said all that, I do believe that Florida will well elect Obama.

    Which gets us to Ohio.

    My own bottom line - either candidate would win - as long as all dems who showed up in the Primary showed up to vote in November and pulled the lever for D.  It really does not matter who the candidate is - they are both good.

    Which is why it is time to dial down the hatred.

    by cynic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:31:36 PM PDT

    •  That argument is beyond idiotic.

      Like it or not, Clinton is winning the states that matter - in the electoral college for a Dem victory in 2008.

      Huckabee won Georgia over McCain. Will McCain have any trouble here in November? No.

      It is pretzel logic of the highest order to compare intra-party preferences -- especially among the least typical of states, i.e. the blue ones -- with GE preferences.

      If anything, one can argue precisely the opposite, with more reason: The HRC blue states will go blue with either of our nominees, but the battleground states of NV, NM, CO and IA -- as well as HRC's weakest hold states NH, MN, WI, MI, OR and WA -- are more likely wins for Obama.

      HRC's only clear strength is OH and the possibility of winning FL.

      by pat208 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:56:02 PM PDT

    •  I live in Florida.

      I don't think Obama can win here and I'm not sure Hillary should be so optimistic either but she's certainly got advantages.

      If either of them win Florida, neither of them will need Ohio.

      by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:56:03 PM PDT

    •  Florida will elect Obama?

      Wait till the convention. Obama's people will sell their own grandmother - if necessary - to prevent Florida delegates from voting. And probably will succeed.

      And people will know. After that Obama won't even be able to win an elcetion for auxiliary dogcatcher in a Florida city ward .

      by cris0000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:08:22 PM PDT

      •  Because of, you know, rules 'n stuff.

        And probably will succeed.

        by pat208 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:11:20 PM PDT

        •  Rules

          don't create legitimacy. Florida citizens will notice that their vote has been discarded because of a minor (and illogical) quarrel between two groups of party officials they both have no control over.

          And that Obama carries major blame for that.

          Rules don't trump justice. Especially not in the eyes of those wronged. The Party should have noticed it had maneuvered itself into a hole here, and stopped digging. They disagree with the decisions of other party officials - but sanction their own voters instead.

          Rules or not, it's an untterly stupid course of action, and the perpetrators will get due receipts for that on election day.

          by cris0000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:19:31 PM PDT

          •  Perpetrators? FLORIDA STATE PARTY.

            Unfortunately, this means that every Democrat running in Florida is going to be hurt by this, period.

            by neroden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:23:19 PM PDT

            •  Nope

              Clinton's folks will stand there with teary eyes and say "lets forget all the squabble over primary dates, and let our brethren in".

              Excluding those delegates from the convention will rest on Obamas shoulders, and on his alone. And he will pay for it, in terms of votes.  And dearly so,  I speculate.

              A decently held election creates its own legitimacy. Especially with voters.

              by cris0000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:28:45 PM PDT

          •  I agree mostly,

            but on this point . . .

            And that Obama carries major blame for that.

            I call bullshit.

            by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:32:07 PM PDT

            •  wait and see

              There's no reality but perception. Which is both shaped and subjective.

              by cris0000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:35:42 PM PDT

          •  Also,

            the delegates will be seated.  The superdelegates will coordinate to make sure the margin for the nominee is sufficient to absorb Fla. and MI either way.

            by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:35:18 PM PDT

            •  that would require

              there to be enough superdelegate mass to maneuver.

              It's an interersting concept, actually. Maybe you're right.

              But what if Hillary manages to hold just enough delegates to deny Obama room for such a draw?

              by cris0000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:41:47 PM PDT

              •  Then we have a floor fight on our hands.

                The DNC will do anything it can to prevent this from happening.  The supers will be under a lot of pressure to find a unifying solution.

                by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:57:02 PM PDT

•  No Clinton on the ticket

  Barack Obama has too much integrity than to put Hilary Clinton on the ticket.

  Kathleen Sibelius would be a great choice, but not Hilary Clinton.

  by Brian82 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:15:41 PM PDT

•  Not going to get KY or TN

  I think the idea that either candidate will win Kentucky or Tennessee is a joke

  by Spock36 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:16:52 PM PDT

  •  So I took them out of the final total n/t

    by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:24:40 PM PDT

•  Um, Alaska and Montana; Obama is 5 pts. down

  All we need is to prop up the Bob Barr campaign [large number of survivalist Republicans in AK and MT] in those states, and Obama can win.

  by DemocraticLuntz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:19:29 PM PDT

  •  This is a key point

    If Bob Bar runs a visible and well-funded Libertarian campaign, that might be enough to flip Montana, Alaska, and one or two Nebraska districts. It would also pad our victories in Oregon, Washington, and New Hampshire and might help a bit in other states.

    by Pd on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:50:18 PM PDT

  •  I think Obama wins in Alaska and Montana.

    The bolder prediction I have for which I will be universally ridiculed is that I think he's going to win Texas.

    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:57:18 PM PDT

  •  AK is a senate pick up

    opportunity for the Dems. A good one too. We need to be there.

    by johnsonwax on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:00:32 PM PDT

•  Thank you so much for your concern.

  Again, and again, and again.

  by sheddhead on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:20:08 PM PDT

  •  You can insult and

    turn a blind eye all you want, if it helps you ignore numbers.  I have, however, been here quite a long time.  There is nothing "trollish" about this analysis.  You simply do not like the results.

    by dhonig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:48:49 PM PDT

    •  TROLL!

      YOU HATE NORTH DAKOTANS!!!!

      by nkz83 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:50:19 PM PDT

      •  LOL n/t

        by JSCram3254 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:08:53 PM PDT

    •  I simply believe in letting the people

      pick the winner.

      Not the loser's buddies.

      I'm funny that way.

      I believe in democracy, not monarchies.  You are allowed to believe in monarchies, all you want.

      by sheddhead on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:13:56 PM PDT

•  Good analysis, food for thought

  I am afraid, however, that Hillary Clinton is not as popular as Bill.

  by marypickford on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:20:12 PM PDT

•  You're basing your assumptions on faulty data.

  The polling of Dem vs McCain will get clear only when we have a presumptive nominee.

  by lastman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:22:05 PM PDT

•  Also, Clinton has trailed McCain outside of MOE

  in Washington state for months and months.

  And Obama's been polling close in Texas. Texas depends on the Hispanic vote turning out, which evidence shows it might do [and they vote Obama in the general]; should Bill Richardson be VP, it's winnable.

  by DemocraticLuntz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:22:25 PM PDT

  •  Nope, not true

    SUSA 4/14-4/16  O-53 M-40 D+13 | C- 48 M-45 D+3
    SUSA 4/7        O-51 M-44 D+5 | C-46 M-45 R+3
    Rasmussen 3/27  O-48 M-43 D+5 | C-43 M-46 R+3
    SUSA 3/14-3/16  O-52 M-41 D+11 | C-50 M-45 D+5