The Clinton and Obama maps

So the pro-Clinton camp is circulating these Electoral-Vote maps to "prove" that Clinton is more "electable" in the fall:

Clinton v McCain:
McCain: 239
Clinton: 289
Ties: 10

Obama v McCain:
McCain: 254
Obama: 269
Ties: 15

I can quibble with the methodology, but I won't. There's a larger point to be made using those maps. The author has helpfully divided the states into Strong, Weak, and Barely Dem/GOP. Let's see how our two candidates fare:

            Obama  Clinton

Strong Dem    67      74
Weak Dem     144      98
Barely Dem    58     117
Tied          15      10
Barely GOP    76      13
Weak GOP      44      89
Strong GOP   134     137

What's this tell us?

• It tells us that Obama's base is stronger: "strong" and "weak" Dem add up to 172 for Clinton, and 211 for Obama. We have to play less defense.
• With Obama, McCain's base is weaker: 226 EVs versus Clinton, and 178 versus Obama.

These two data points alone are worth the price of admission for Obama. With him as our nominee, Democrats have a larger safe base, and Republicans have a smaller one. But what about the contested states?

• More Democratic states are at risk with Clinton. In the "barely Dem" category, Clinton has double the EVs -- 117 to 58. What's more, the "tied" state -- Wisconsin, is a Blue state. So with Clinton, we have 127 EVs that are in weak hands.

  With Obama, however, we have only 58 "barely Dem" EVs, and the tied states, North Carolina, is a Red state.

• Obama puts more pressure on McCain states: With Obama, McCain has 76 "barely GOP" EVs compared to 13 against Clinton. Put another way, best case scenario where our candidates take all the states in their column and "barely GOP" columns, Obama ends up with 360 EVs, while Clinton would get 312. Obama has far higher ceiling.
• Obama Holds the Kerry states better: This is related to the "base states" stuff above. The only Kerry state Obama currently loses is New Hampshire. On the other hand, Clinton loses Michigan, New Hampshire, and ties in Wisconsin. Furthermore, Obama has three Kerry states in the "barely" category -- Michigan, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Clinton has six -- Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Hawaii. That means that Clinton is losing or barely holding on to 9 Kerry states (out of 19), compared to four for Obama.

Democratic numbers versus McCain are currently artificially depressed because of our long-running primary. But despite that disadvantage, Obama still runs a far broader, map-changing campaign than Clinton.

If Democrats want to run the same campaign that has served us so poorly the last decade -- hold the Kerry states and win Ohio and Florida, then Clinton is the person. It's clear in her rhetoric that she can't fathom any other path to the White House. That's why she has insulted so many "Red" states and small states and whatnot. Because in her mind, 50%+1 is the only thing that matters.

Beside having a more solid base than Clinton, Obama's campaign would have a tough time competing in Florida, no doubt about that. But he opens up the Mountain West -- Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, possibly Montana, North Dakota, and even one or two of Nebraska's EVs (they are apportioned by congressional district). Obama would be competitive in Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia -- with their large youth, African American, Latino, and creative class voters.

And I'm getting this all from the map currently cited by Clinton supporters as evidence of her supposed better electability. The map, sad to say (for them), says the exact opposite.

•  Talk about this,

  If Obama would spend more time educating Americans on lobbyists and special interest groups, and how they currently control the government, he could really get the attention of the demographics that he needs the  support from.
  Explain more in depth how the average American's ideas, wants and needs are swept under rug when it comes to Pharmeceutical companies and the lot. We'll all pay attention.
  The usual issues have been discussed to the point of sounding like a "broken record".
  If he truly believes he can run our country without the lure of special interest groups (I am soooo crossing my fingers) than THAT is the issue to focus on for a while.
  The corruption and greed in our government is what I find to be the most important issue, as it dictates how all the others are dealt with.

  by eswey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:39:52 AM PDT

  •  not emotional enough for a hot primary

    That's the kind of stuff that, ideally, a Democratic candidate would be doing right now, having secured the nomination, and solely training fire on McCain, and establishing the differences betwen general election candidates.

    It's the kind of thing that goes on, the background, but yet essentially voter education, otherwise known as framing your opponent, that happens most effectively when people aren't sucked up into the vortex of a "competitive" primary, or any competitive, here and now election event.

    Unfortunately, with Clinton clinging on in the race, Obama has to do the down and dirty compare and contrast with the opponent politicking, and doesn't have the time to do that necessary more in depth voter education that would help any Democrat in a november tussle against McCain.

    by pmukh on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:52:36 AM PDT

    •  sadly

      the most important stuff often isn't emotional enough. worse still this lack of concern makes me quite emotional to the point of seething....

      by potty p on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:54:05 AM PDT

      •  No, it can be emotional if you

        use the right rhetoric.  It's all about framing the message.  

        by Melchuck29 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:11:54 AM PDT

    •  against McCain state-by-state

      good work Kos!  funny stuff.

      so i went to the website's main page and this graphic is up there right now: "General Election Polls: Who Does Better Against McCain State by State?"
      http://www.electoral-vote.com

      is shows that, when compared to McSame:

      Obama does better than Clinton by ≥ 5% in 136 EV
      Obama does better than Clinton by < 5% in 32 EV
      Clinton does better than Obama by <5% in 0 EV <br>Clinton does better than Obama by ≥ 5% in 83 EV

      kos, can you say who in the pro-HRC camp is circulating this website?

      LOL

      by distraught on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:14:19 PM PDT

      •  It's on MyDD, at a minimum

        And it's even worse than Markos says.  Hover over the "barely winning" states in Hillary's map to get the actual numbers, with margins, from the polls being used:

        WA: +3
        OR: +1
        NV: +1
        MN: +1
        MO: +1
        OH: +3
        FL: +1
        NJ: +1
        CT: +3

        Now do the same for the "barely winning" states in Obama's map:

        NV: +4
        CO: +3
        MI: +2
        NJ: +2
        MA: +2

        That's right -- six of the eight polls being used to show Hillary's "advantage" are based on one-point leads.  None of Obama's are.  I'm willing to call anything under three points a "virtual tie" -- in that case, Hillary would have 38 EVs in the "barely" category and Obama would have 14 EVs.

        Making much of those sorts of differences is silliness this far out anyway, but using them as a main basis for support of a candidate -- that's transcendantly silly.  But at any rate, if you count all states with advantages of 3 points and up, Hillary has 210 EVs and Obama has 225.  For those people who'd like to have fingernails left at the end of election day, the implications are clear.

        by Seneca Doane on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:45:16 PM PDT

        •  fingernails? What are those?

          already chewed 'em to heck and back, and there's still more than six months to go....

          by pmukh on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:11:25 PM PDT

  •  Fat Chance!

    58 % of American voters don't "trust" Hillary.
    Only some die-hards of the Dem. Party for Hillary would vote for her.

    As we know for a verifiable fact, the independents will decide who gets to be the POTUS.
    In any group other than the die-hards, she will not muster the support enough to win come Nov.

    Who of a reasonable & objective mind would vote for a candidate of 58% untrustworthy ratings?

    Also, who in the right mind trust and vote for Hillary who'd "attack Iran" and "totally obliterate them" with NUKEs?

    by vericool on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:55:32 AM PDT

    •  I am -- proudly! --one of the 58%! And I

      do NOT vote for people I don't trust!

      Aloha   ..  ..  ..

      by dolphin777 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:54:16 PM PDT

  •  WARNING INFO ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!

    I can promise you one thing - Mccan't will not win Wisconsin.  I don't know when that poll was taken but no way in hell does he win up here.  no way.  I guarn-effing - tee it.

    So, you can put it on the boaaarrd....YES!!!!!

    by Joan Evan on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:08:11 PM PDT

    •  Of course, McCain can win Wisconsin

      As usual, it will be about Waukesha County, one of the reddest states in the country and the reason that Wisconsin was THE closest state last time.  

      I said here then that it could go red this time, unless today's "progressives" stop presuming that Wisconsin still is a progressive state.  That was 100 years ago -- and a myth even then for most Wisconsinites, women.   And really, only Madison was with the progressives -- who were Republicans, after all -- even then.  Northern Wisconsin was Populist, and Milwaukee was Socialist, the rest staunchly non-progressive Republican.  

      Waukesha County went to Obama in the primary because of Republican crossover, the fun they have in many election years with Dems.  Remember, the state that sent JFK on his way to the White House in 1960 then was the state that, four years later, gave George Wallace a second-place finish in the Wisconsin primary.

      And it's a state where even Feingold won't mess with the gun-toting majority, a state that goes to church more than almost any other.  The state is not clinging to Obama, he's losing fast here -- where it could go to McCain in a Wisconsin minute.  A Wisconsin minute may be beyond the attention span of pollsters attempting "snapshots," but watch the trends since the primary in the polls here.  Bad news.

      by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:30:31 AM PDT

  •  If I could double or triple ...

    recommend your comment, I would.  It's by far one of his sharpest contrasts to HRC.  I honestly believe (and I wrote this to him too) that had he talked more about lobbyists before the Texas primary and pointed out that lobbyists were the main reason for the rise of Tom DeLay and mid-decade redistricting, then he would have won the popular vote in Texas, and this primary election would be over.

    by blank on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:24:43 PM PDT

•  None of these studies works w/ 3 in the campaign

  Until the voters actually know there are only two candidates left, all of these numbers are useless.  

  by SteamPunkX on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:41:13 AM PDT

  •  indeedy they are

    show me something in June when this is finally over.

    by terrypinder on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:43:13 AM PDT

    •  strange numbers, though

      Clinton's number show Obama winning 269 electoral votes, with a few still tied?

      So her own number show that he's eminently electable as President?

      I would have figured that her camp would cherry pick the number to show him behind McCain, so as to better make the case for her own UNIQUE electability.

      But I guess after she admitted that Obama was electable during the debate....they had no choice but to argue that he was, indeed electable, but that she's "more" electable.

      No, no parsing going on here, move along.

      by pmukh on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:48:27 AM PDT

      •  Even their spin is getting off message. nt

        by MingPicket on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:49:38 AM PDT

  •  The fact remains

    We have one candidate who can win over centrists, and one who can't.

    Their candidate is pretty strong with moderates, so what's it going to be?

    by droogie6655321 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:44:39 AM PDT

    •  Which one is which?

      Which one can win over centrists, and what do you define as a centrist?

      by SteamPunkX on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:48:38 AM PDT

      •  asdf

        Obama can win over centrists, moderates, independents, etc. better than Clinton.

        These people have one thing in common. They're moderate politically and they don't strongly identify with either party.

        by droogie6655321 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:56:04 AM PDT

  •  3? there will be 5 or 6

    Nader and Barr and Gravel, plus McCain and Obama. It will be a 5 way race at the very least.

    I'm also guessing the Clinton spin is based on the assumption that blacks are only supporting Obama because he's black but will flock to her in the general in the same numbers they have run up against Republicans in the past.

    Not this time.

    by eclecticbrotha on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:52:25 AM PDT

    •  Yes this time

      So you assume blacks wont vote for Hillary??  Why  You assume whites will vote for him.  Why??

      Or are you making the same unfounded comments like most on this board

      by ggymrat32 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:40:30 PM PDT

      •  Not if she shoves Obama to the back of the bus NT

        by RoscoeOfAlabama on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:47:04 PM PDT

      •  Many AA voters

        would stay home if they feel she's stolen the election from Obama.  It's not that nutty of a suggestion.  She would have enjoyed strong support from the AA community if she could win in a way that seems fair, but she can't at this point.  Her spin on the issue is not going to be convincing to the AA community if she has the SD's take it away from Obama.

        by bythesea on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:51:53 PM PDT

        •  Another untruth

          How can she win it unfairly?  How often have I heard that one .  Please do explain

          by ggymrat32 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:44:37 PM PDT

          •  A couple of ways

            First, counting the Michigan and Florida results would be seen by many as unfair. In Michigan, Clinton was the only candidate on the ballot, so the results are utterly uninterpretable. Florida is only somewhat less problematic. Voters were told their votes would not count, so many stayed home (or at work) rather than vote in a useless election. It's impossible to say how this affected turnout. As a consequence, if Michigan and Florida were seated in any way but 50/50, many would feel that this was unfair. (Al Sharpton, for example, has argued this point emphatically.)

            The second way would be for the superdelegates to turn the election in Clinton's favor. Obama will almost certainly win the most pledged delegates, the most states, and the highest popular vote, so the superdelegates would be overturning the will of the people by any measure. Unlike the first way, this would be allowed by party rules, but the voters would surely feel slighted. In particular, African-American voters have voted overwhelmingly for Obama. How would they feel if, after he finally secured all the necessary votes to attain the nomination, predominantly white party insiders said "Sorry, we're gonna go with the white candidate, and the voters can go fuck themselves"? It would be disastrous.

            Barring a major Obama scandal (on the level of infidelity, not on the level of crazy pastors from his part), he will win the vote, and the only way Clinton could conceivably secure the nomination is by alienating African-Americans.

            by Caesura on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:31:46 AM PDT

            •  Well first I'm an African American

              And I'd feel fine about it.  Or does your racist attitude assume all blacks think and act alike.  Secondly Mich/Fl are not being counted so to assume they are is shall we say stupid.  And finally the super delegates in the currently agreed upon rules ( you and BO supporters always make mention of the rules) state that SD's are free to vote "any" way they want for the greater good of the party.  It is their free choice just like yours or mine.  So if they vote for HRC how is that her stealing the election? Oh and since the split in total votes is approximately 51% BO  49% HRC.   How due you think the 49% of voters that voted for HRC would feel if BO stole the election by forcing HRC out of the race.  Hmmm all anout perspective or in your case lack there of.

              by ggymrat32 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:27:12 AM PDT

              •  If you had read my post...

                you would have noticed that I freely pointed out that it is within the superdelegates' rights under the rules to overturn the will of the voters. However, do you not see how it might be unpopular for a bunch of predominantly white party insiders in positions of power to overturn the voters' choice to nominate the first African-American presidential nominee? Yes, it's within the rules, but those rules, also constructed by white party insiders, will hardly prevent black voters from feeling disenfranchised.

                If you had read my post, you also might have figured out that I am not referring to every African-American in the United States. Believe it or not, I am not completely braindead, and I am aware that not all black people support Obama, nor would all black Obama supporters feel disenfranchised if the superdelegates overturned their votes, but thanks for the clarification nonetheless. I am not suggesting that the superdelegates throwing the nomination to Clinton would alienate every single black person in America, but it would alienate many.

                But instead of making an honest attempt at dialogue, you prefer to manufacture straw men and knock them down. Hell, you couldn't even get through your second sentence before you called me a "racist." That must make you feel good about yourself, trying to shut down debate by accusing anyone who disagrees with you of racism on the basis of no evidence at all. A great representative for the Clinton campaign, you are.

                by Caesura on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:16:43 PM PDT

                •  Why thank you

                  Now you get a sense of what happens to those who do try and have "honest debates" but just happen to support Clinton .  But it seems we are shunned from this site as if it were the exclusive perview of Obama supporters .

                  by ggymrat32 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:40:48 PM PDT

                  •  So, what you're telling me is:

                    "Well, some Obama supporters are jackasses, so I'm going to be a jackass to you so you know how it feels, even though you're one of the people trying to engage in debate rather than being a jackass."

                    Uh, OK, whatever floats your boat.

                    by Caesura on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:23:04 AM PDT

                    •  Juvenile isn't it

                      But you still miss or avoid the central issue. gloss over it then move on and pretend its not a problem.  What you and others should be doing is building bridges but you still seem to have tunnel vision on anything Clinton.  As much as the electoral map favors the dems.  It is still very thin,  so every vote even a clinton supporters vote will count.

                      by ggymrat32 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:04:34 AM PDT

                      •  Which is precisely...

                        why I was trying to reach out to you, build bridges, and convince you that our position is reasonable. I'm still not sure what you think I should have done differently.

                        by Caesura on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:54:52 AM PDT

  •  What gets me is the

    Clinton vs McCain and Obama vs McCain polls.

    No one has seen Obama stand side-by-side with McCain in a debate yet.  Once that happens I can only see the numbers soaring for Obama.

    Can't you picture a young, charismatic, bold, hopeful Obama vs. an old, tired, grumpy, same ol' same ol' McCain?

    by wry twinger on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:04:19 PM PDT

    •  Not only can I picture it

      I dream of it!

      by llamaRCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:14:13 PM PDT

    •  excellent point!

      n/t

      by radical centrist on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:36:06 PM PDT

    •  My friends,

      I welcome that day.

      Usually doing well in a debate requires some grasp on the actual facts.  

      by ccyd on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:52:37 PM PDT

•  Keith Needs To Pick This Up TODAY

  This is the most excellent and succinct explanation of the Obama electablity argument, I have seen yet.

  by sea2008 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:41:18 AM PDT

  •  Keith needs to pick up this Newsday story

    today that investigates Hillary's claim that she didn't know her husband had commuted the sentences of the Weather Underground people - in spite of the fact that she was running for the Senate in New York state http://weblogs.newsday.com/... Newsday finds her claim suspect. Now Drudge has picked up on this. I think this story has legs and could be as bad as the Bosnia story:

    by Earl3 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:44:22 AM PDT

    •  How could this be?

      I thought she had been fully vetted!  I guess not.  

      by Blackacre on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:47:43 AM PDT

•  She's QUEEN of 50%+1, it's how the Clintons

  have always run all their campaigns. it's how they also ran the Democratic party into the ground.

  by Shane Hensinger on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:41:45 AM PDT

  •  Except it only worked when Perot was in the mix.

    So it wasn't really 50%+1 after all. That's why she's losing.

    by Jimdotz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:47:18 AM PDT

    •  Yup.

      Bill Clinton never broke 50% in either of his GE wins.

      by rashomon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:55:56 AM PDT

  •  what about Obama's 50% +1 right now!!

    Hey Dummy its about Electoral votes not popular votes .  I thought 2000 taught you that

    by ggymrat32 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:43:01 PM PDT

  •  WTF???

    B. Clinton won landslide wins in 1992 and 1996, with 370 and 379 EVs, respectively.

    by davybaby on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:52:05 PM PDT

    •  The commenter is talking about the popular vote

      Not the EVs.

      by bythesea on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:53:27 PM PDT

      •  By any measure, they weren't close elections.

        by davybaby on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:54:54 PM PDT

        •  True

          but I think their point is that Clinton never pursued or achieved a majority in either election, which is true.

          by bythesea on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:11:38 PM PDT

          •  Their "point" misses the point.

            by davybaby on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:34:07 PM PDT

            •  I think you do

              whether you agree or not there is a contrast between the two campaigns.  Clinton seeks to eek out a win, while Obama seeks a real mandate as well as a win.  Whether either can get what they seek is another issue.

              by bythesea on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:40:49 PM PDT

              •  "Eek out"?

                I don't know where that came from. Certainly, nothing would make her happier than a win of the magnitude of Bill's two landslides. I'm sure Barack feels exactly the same way. I can't imagine that he is naive enough to believe Kos's nonsense about winning, say, North dakota.

                by davybaby on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:04:04 PM PDT

                •  Okay

                  one more try.  Hillary's stated strategy is the Kerry States plus OH or FL.  Obama's is a broader effort.  I'm sure either would be happy with a landslide, but that's not the point.  Most people seem to be able to understand that a significant win of the popular vote as well as in EVs gives the POTUS more of a political mandate.  Bill Clinton won less than fifty percent of the vote both times, even though he won in the EC.  Are you pretending not to understand the difference between the popular vote and the EC, or is it genuine bewilderment?  

                  by bythesea on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:53:12 PM PDT

                  •  Hillary's strategy is

                    the Kerry states plus Ohio, Florida, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico & Nevada. That's 343 electoral votes. Obama's target list varies somewhat, but the total is similar.

                    Obviously, since there were three-way races in both of Bill Clinton's elections his EV landslides came without popular vote majorities, even though he won by 6% in '92 and 8% in '96. Surely he would have won by solid majorities in a two-way race.

                    But, as we learned in 2000, this isn't about popular votes; it's about electoral votes. This isn't one election; it is 51 separate and simultaneous elections (ignoring the split by CD in Maine & Nebraska). The task is to get to 270. anything else is gravy.

                    by davybaby on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:04:14 PM PDT

  •  When I read sig, always hum Springsteen's

    "Saint in the city"!!

    Aloha   ..  ..  ..

    by dolphin777 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:58:05 PM PDT

  •  Another Obama Electability Plus...

    Remember those 300,000 new Democrats that were newly registered in Pennsylvania for this recent primary?  Obama got a large majority of these.  Can't remember the specific breakdown, but think Obama got about 60-65% of them.  Now who's bringing in new people into the process and the Democratic fold, Superdelegates?

    by jiminy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:19:06 PM PDT

•  KOS, PUT THIS ON THE FRONT PAGE!

  Oh wait...

  Nevermind.

  Send it to every undecided superdelegate instead.

  by wmtriallawyer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:42:33 AM PDT

  •  Yup.

    Obama will win Virginia.  Clinton wouldn't even have a real campaign there.

    by Adam B on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:44:26 AM PDT

    •  Bill C. won states in gen he lost in primary

      So the HRC argument that Obama can't win in the general states he lost to Hil is bogus:

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      by Phoenix Woman on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:52:39 AM PDT

      •  It always has been

        they basically just made up the idea.  In fact it's a total non sequiter argument.

        by bythesea on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:54:43 PM PDT

    •  Happy Passover, Adam.

      Good to blog with you.

      Having grown up in Old Dominion, which hasn't gone Democratic in a Presidential Election since 1964, and generally votes for statewide for some of the nation's most conservative Republicans -- George Allen, Jim Gilmore, and even almost Ollie North -- it's hard to see a liberal Democrat such as Barack Obama carrying the commonwealth.  This commonwealth remains very, very conservative, so it's a tall order for a Democrat to win the state.

      That said, with Mark Warner running for the Senate, it's important for a Democrat to do well in Old Dominion.  I don't want to repeat 2004 where many Republicans -- some seriously flawed, i.e., Jim Bunning and Tom Coburn -- sent to the Senate because of Republican coattails.  The goal isn't just the Presidency -- it's also about 60 Senate Democrats, 250+ House Democrats, a majority of governorships and state legislatures for the 2010 redistricting (which is why NC and IN, which hold gubernatorial elections this year, are so important).

      So Yes. We. Can.

      by jim bow on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:06:07 PM PDT

      •  Agreed

        Using the Electoral-Vote.com 269 Obama EV map (which I don't think is very useful, since it relies far too heavily on the single most recent poll), it is more likely that NH, NM, or even a single EV from NE would get Obama to 270 than would VA.  An Obama electoral strategy that would depend upon him winning VA would be a very risky strategy.

        by Foodle on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:54:15 PM PDT

      •  Luvs recent remarks: coattails v. baggage! n/t

        by dolphin777 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:04:20 PM PDT

    •  Virginia

      Virginia is a longshot. It hasn't voted for a Democrat for President since 1964. McCain grew up in Virginia (he is a graduate of Episcopal High School in Alexandria) and his mother still lives there. His Navy background will be a huge help in a state where both Senators, John Warner and Jim Webb, have served as Secretary of the Navy.

      Demographic changes in the DC suburbs help us tremendously, but let's not kid ourselves; Virginia is at best a purple state. I'd say he needs a nationwide win of at least 54-46 in order to carry Virginia.

      by davybaby on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:00:43 PM PDT

      •  honestly ...

        .... it's reverse coattails from Warner that'll do it, IMHO.

        by Adam B on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:01:45 PM PDT

        •  When have "reverse coattails" EVER worked?

          by davybaby on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:09:23 PM PDT

•  re

  Think of how many brain, computer and dollar units are being wasted because she will not drop out despite having no chance of winning.

  Thanks Hill.

  by cookiesandmilk on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:43:21 AM PDT

  •  Those "...dollar units ..." upset me alot! Sooo

    many far better things  can be spent on!

    Aloha   ..  ..  ..

    by dolphin777 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:06:07 PM PDT

•  I've been saying this a while.

  You can't put up a candidate with no crossover appeal against one who has crossover appeal.

  Whether we like to admit it or not, McCain has strong support among moderates.

  Luckily, Obama's appeal to moderates may be even stronger. Hillary's just isn't there, no matter how you look at it.

  by droogie6655321 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:43:35 AM PDT

  •  McCain's appeal to moderates

    will begin to evaporate once Obama engages him in the general election campaign.

    Moderates are (finally) sick to death of war mongers.

    by internationaljock on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:49:06 AM PDT

•  Jerome's at it again

  The real popular vote is very close. Clinton leads by just 12,506 votes, a lead of .04 percent. The numbers I passed on in a post yesterday about Clinton's lead in the popular vote excluded estimates from 4 caucus states, which I didn't realize until being able to check in later (and updated the post). I see that Markos flipped out with a tirade about it. ...

  No one but Obama is to blame for his having no votes in Michigan. His campaign came up with the gambit to take his name off the ballot in MI to score cheap points in IA, and his campaign took the lead in convincing Edwards and Richardson to follow along and remove their names from the MI ballot to try and force Clinton to follow suit (my sources are from top people in the Edwards campaign). it didn't work, Clinton took the hit of the political stunt and kept her name on the ballot in Michigan.

  http://www.mydd.com/...

  by Joe Beese on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:43:37 AM PDT

  •  re

    His campaign came up with the gambit to take his name off the ballot in M

    Only in MYDD land is standing by an agreement and following the rules "scoring cheap points"...

    by cookiesandmilk on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:45:46 AM PDT

    •  Integrity offends the guilty-minded

      eom

      by Joe Beese on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:55:56 AM PDT

      •  My mantra for the day, Joe!! n/t

        by dolphin777 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:07:54 PM PDT

  •  Jerome's Clintonian alternate universe garbage.

    His campaign came up with the gambit to take his name off the ballot in MI

    Uh, the DNC had officially declared the MI primary null and void.

    by BonzoDogBand on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:01:41 PM PDT

  •  LMAO!

    I love this... it's his "own fault" he didn't cheat like a thief and had actual integrity!  eGADS! I'm almost going to miss this nonsense when she's finally gone.

    Almost.

    Hillary:  she'll lie and cheat for you!

    Hillary:  no road too low to the White House!

    Hillary:  making Soviet Russia look democratic :-)

    Hillary:  Nuke em, let God de-vaporize them iranians

    Hillary:  making McCain look sane!  :-p

    by IndieinVa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:07:49 PM PDT

  •  Jerome staked his reputation on Hillary...

    ...he can't let it go.

    After we have been compiling records of every bit of BS he spews for the ages, his only salvation is to have been right about Obama.

    Selfish indeed (as if he still had a career), but I fear more that he is influencing people with his spin, providing false hope that will be harshly dashed, and gearing these people up for the perception that the nomination has been stolen and is illegitimate.

    The above reduction in total cited, reduced down to 12056, is still including MI and FL, giving Sen. Obama none of MI's uncomitted.

    Just yesterday, Jerome had wrote:

    the Fact Hub this morning:

    After last night's decisive victory in Pennsylvania, more people have voted for Hillary than any other candidate, including Sen. Obama.

    Estimates vary slightly, but according to Real Clear Politics, Hillary has received 15,095,663 votes to Sen. Obama's 14,973,720, a margin of more than 120,000 votes [Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA is 13K plus for Clinton]. ABC News reported this morning that "Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama" in the popular vote.

    Does that include all 50 states (and then some)? Of course.

    Not.

    by code blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:25:50 PM PDT

  •  With him back, ...

    I may need to swear off MyDD again for at least a couple weeks.

    by reklemrov on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:39:33 PM PDT

  •  example #1 why I don't read mydd anymore

    n/t

    by radical centrist on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:40:12 PM PDT

•  Someone should print Clinton's map out for her

  so she can have it as a keepsake...what might have been had she not been beaten by a much stronger, more sincere, honest, and worthy opponent in the primary.

  by darthstar on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:44:02 AM PDT

•  Hey, don't try to use....

  ....complex concepts like "rationality" or "logic" on Clinton supporters.

  They seem to think that they can spin, lie and damage Obama on their way to the nomination without pissing off the droves of people that turned out for him this year. So John McCain is able to stay above the fray and look "presidential" while Clinton drags Obama through the mud.

  by lams712 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:44:04 AM PDT

  •  Or the media

    Right now, the Clinton Kool-Aid is on tap, and the media are doing keg stands. The same writers who once said Clinton was doomed are now ignoring the fact that the math is even more oppressive for Clinton. Obama will likely need to convince 25 percent to 35 percent of the about 300 uncommitted superdelegates to support him, and he will reach the 2,024 delegates needed to become the nominee. Put another way, Clinton needs to convince 65 percent to 75 percent of them to vote for her. That's 200 elected officials and party bigwigs she needs to convince not to support the guy who has the most pledged delegates. Moreover, she won't win the popular vote if Obama wins North Carolina—the biggest state remaining—by a blowout margin (as polls suggest he will).

    Not to mention the real reason a Clinton comeback won't happen: Superdelegates still aren't endorsing her. Since her win in Pennsylvania, Obama has announced three super endorsements; Clinton has announced one. Clinton's new friend is Rep. John Tanner of Tennessee, a state she won easily. Obama's three are from Nebraska (a state he won), Oklahoma (where Clinton destroyed him), and Oregon (which hasn't even voted yet). Adding one new superdelegate and a pile of cash does not turn the tide. Quantitatively and qualitatively, Obama still has the winning hand.

    http://www.slate.com/...

    by Joe Beese on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:57:53 AM PDT

•  Obama does better in the uppersouth and mountain

  west.

  Obama does better in VA and NC, and in CO, NM, and NV. Further, he does way, way better in Iowa (a state Kerry lost).

  If Obama can carry VA or NC plus IA, NV, CO, and NM--he's just got 270 without Pennsylvania or Ohio.

  If he can carry both, and the western states, he's just got 300 electoral votes.

  Obama does better in the areas we need to focus on. Banging our heads against the wall in Ohio doesn't work, and is a recipe for another defeat. Further, Hillary's problems with African Americans could lead to states like Maryland and Delaware--blue states--defecting to McCain.  

  by The Bagof Health and Politics on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:44:10 AM PDT

  •  Of course it would be easier

    It would be a hell of a lot easier if he carries PA and OH. If we lose them, we need a LOT of possibles to fall into place. VA, NV, CO & NM are hardly shoe-ins for us. And I suspect that if we were to lose OH and PA, the political landscape would not look all that favorable for us to capture those other states. I'd be shocked, for example, if we won NC and lost PA.

    by YoGo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:54:59 AM PDT

  •  Also more states in play means less chance for

    "election irregularities".

    You can tell Rove in advance where he has to send the fraudulous goons to squeeze those few extra percents in, like the Clinton strategy is, or you can make the field so big that even in the Republican party there aren't enough people dishonest enough to pull it off.

    by Calouste on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:44:38 PM PDT

  •  And MUCH worse

    in West Virginia, Kentucky and Arkansas. In KY for example, the latest poll shows Hillary within two points of McCain, while Obama loses by 34 points.

    by davybaby on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:07:43 PM PDT

    •  I think

      HRC would easily carry Arkansas, and probably could pull off KY, but not WV.  Not that it matters since she won't be the nominee.

      by bythesea on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:58:50 PM PDT

•  Lanny Davis Said Obama Loses 49 States

  Her actual quote was "McGovernesque"...

  by IndianaDemocrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:44:13 AM PDT

  •  Are You Freakin' Kidding Me?

    What a maroon...

    by CityLightsLover on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:50:54 AM PDT

  •  Only Clintonite I Respect Less Than Lanny....

    ....is James Carville. i find both of them repugnant.

    by frandor55 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:51:30 AM PDT

  •  I always confuse that name with Lani Guinier

    Davis had better hope he doesn't outlive his usefulness to the Clintons the way she did.

    by Joe Beese on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:59:47 AM PDT

  •  That's absurd

    What state did she think he would win?

    HI? IL? CA? NY? MA?

    I can't see McCain carrying any of those states, even if Obama were eaten by a bear.

    by elfling on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:00:57 PM PDT

•  I love Electoral-Vote.com

  I have gone there daily to see the maps.  This guy is on the level, blogging from the Netherlands as a hobby from his day job as a computer science professor.

  The best thing about his site is that, until recently, he was the best source for the state of play in the one metric that really matters for winning the presidency.  The electoral-vote-counting sites that have propped up recently (538.com, etc.) got their start from this guy.

  by aloha and mahalo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:44:38 AM PDT

  •  It's addictive, but

    those polls are pretty much meaningless 6 months before the election.  Remember, 6 months ago the "inevitable" nominees were Clinton & Giuliani.

    Of course, that doesn't stop me from checking the site every day!

    by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:12:20 PM PDT

  •  I read it for the articles

    
         Even if the site didn't have the map, its below-the-fold articles would make it a must-read.

    by garscosi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:23:18 PM PDT

•  Insanity is doing the same damn thing over

  and over, and expecting different results.

  50% + 1 doesn't get us where we need to be.  Quit being such fucking pansies Dems, have some balls and some faith in your convictions and go for it.  

  Hey, I tell you what...if the Dems actually do...I'll come back to the party and actually register as a Dem after being a lefty voting Indy for so long.

  by hollywood politcaljunkie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:44:48 AM PDT

•  Clinton Cannot Win In Mountain West

  I live in NM and I;ve met quite a few folks who will never vote for Clinton but Obama is more of a "well,..... maybe".

  A Clinton nomonation would mean the Dems writing of MT OR, CO NV and probably NM, although she has a decent chance here.

  by frandor55 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:45:00 AM PDT

•  she is really really drunk

  is they think Hillary is going to win FL.

  by adamchaz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:45:05 AM PDT

•  No, it shows her might in a general election

  The longer the primary fight the better for everyone!

  Superdelegates were created 25 years ago by the Democratic party elite to act as a emergency break during the Democratic nomination process. The process is structured in a way that a candidate can capture a majority of the delegates for the convention, yet not be a strong enough candidate for the Democrats in the general elections. Technically, the primary/caucus process can yield a nominee that is out-of-touch with the Democratic base and with potential cross-over voters.

  http://clintonista.wordpress.com/...

  by klintonista on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:45:18 AM PDT

  •  Yep:

    Technically, the primary/caucus process can yield a nominee that is out-of-touch with the Democratic base and with potential cross-over voters.

    Someone like HILLARY CLINTON!!!

    by lams712 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:47:33 AM PDT

    •  punk'd.

      by noabsolutes on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:52:40 AM PDT

  •  Bush proved you can't win without a happy base

    Override the will of the people, and there will be a food fight of food fights in Denver, and a disastrous defeat of Clinton in November. Period. I wouldn't mind it, as it'd purge the party of the cancer that is the Clintonites once and for all...

    by The Bagof Health and Politics on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:54:10 AM PDT

    •  I really can't agree...

      ...sufficiently strongly with this!

      by Obama Amabo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:09:08 PM PDT

  •  Except.....

    ...Obama is not:

    out-of-touch with the Democratic base and with potential cross-over voters.

    That would be Hill-rod!!!  He is winning the majority of the 'base' and just about all of the crossover vote that no one was even talking about until the Obamicans and New Voters started pouring in.

    ...and the flawed logic just keeps deteriorating.

    No matter, we just want all to feel welcomed in the Obama campaign that sees no state or demographic as "unimportant!"  We welcome you over in a month or so.

    by ILean Left on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:54:59 AM PDT

  •  Close, but no cigar.

    The idea is that the primaries and caucuses can yield someone who's out of touch with the party elites, not that the process can lead someone who's out of touch with the Democratic base. The Clinton camp's argument is that "activists" are ruining the process by doing things like... activism. And... mobilizing voters. And... organizing. News flash: you can't lead a movement by encouraging people to kind-of, sort-of support you, not-too-strongly. You can win an election in which damn near no one participates, but you can't lead a movement.

    by noabsolutes on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:55:02 AM PDT

  •  that's a pretty stupid statement.

    When McCain was looking like he would be the Republican nominee, the elite, top tier Republicans all complained that he was out of touch with the Republican/conservative base. Yet he seems to be doing fine. It's funny how the American public, you know, the people who actually vote, can determine the best candidate since it is these same voters who will pick the President, NOT a handful of people.

    by jem286 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:52:52 PM PDT

  •  Spin

    Spin.  Repeat.  Spin.

    by bythesea on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:04:55 PM PDT

•  Plus, Obama has WAY more upside

  Not only does Obama seem better positioned to beat McCain right now, he also can continue to attract new voters and new supporters from all parties.  Clinton is ceiling is pretty well fixed.

  by Sedi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:45:23 AM PDT

•  This argument does us no good unless

  it is picked up by the MSM.
  Drudge is the closest way to get to MSM, isn't there any way to feed him this information?

  by notquitedelilah on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:45:33 AM PDT

  •  And the possibility of the MSM getting this right

    Did I hear zero?  Less than zero?  MSM blindly running this tonight on the "newzzz" and then reporting on the Obama "reaction?"

    Remember when these people were interested in getting facts, not just dueling press releases?

    by Coach Jay on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:49:48 AM PDT

  •  Not Unless You Preface It

    with a stained blue dress.

    by CityLightsLover on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:51:53 AM PDT

•  For Clinton to spin like this

  shows how desperate they really are.

  That and the counting of MI and FL.

  Have you no sense of shame HRC?

  by 7November on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:45:41 AM PDT

  •  I love that they complain about MI and FL

    The effort in MI and FL should be to get rid of the MI and FL Dem Leaders that disenfranchised their voters.  But, that being said these Clinton Supporters are going to continue to make unreasonable demands no matter what you do.  Might as well let them go on and on about MI and FL.  It is like watching an ant farm.

    by dan667 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:52:03 AM PDT

    •  what was even funnier

      Was the plan by a Clinton MI superdelegate to seat the delegation but give only 0.5 votes to each PLEDGED delegate.  The MI superdelegates, of course, would count fully.

      http://talkingpointsmemo.com/...

      by radical centrist on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:44:06 PM PDT

•  I have a different, but related, analysis...

  ...which I'd like to diary, but it's all pivoting around a spreadsheet.  Does anyone know how I can post an Excel table without doing all the manual formatting?

  by The Termite on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:46:10 AM PDT

  •  I look forward to it...

    ... but I can't help ya with the technical stuff. ;-)

    by droogie6655321 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:46:50 AM PDT

    •  See above, sans spreadsheet

      Just some of the key findings.