Has anyone been talking about this? (with poll)

One of the most specious arguments we've heard some of the Democratic strategists make is that Obama is weaker in Ohio and Pennsylvania than Clinton is simply because Clinton defeated him there.

    To be sure, Clinton scored relatively convincing victories in both Ohio and Pennsylvania over Obama.  And she currently polls a bit better than Obama does in those states.  But does that mean that Obama can't win those states?

    One of the most conspicuous aspects of both Ohio and Pennsylvania is that they are probably the biggest old-school "machine" type states left in the country as far as the Democratic Party goes.  Because the party machinery in both states was behind Clinton, it meant she had an automatic advantage against Obama.  What everyone neglects to mention is, when Obama is the nominee, the same machine in each state will be working for him.

    In the year 2004, the deck was stacked against Kerry in Ohio as far as government machinery goes.  The Governor was Republican Bob Taft. And the man who was basically in charge of election machinery was the Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell.  We now know that there were numerous "problems" on election day - not enough voting booths in Democratic precincts, problems with voting machines, ballots not being mailed to overseas voters in time, regular voters being stricken from the rolls, and so on.

Link:  http://www.rollingstone.com/...

    But this year, we have Democrats in charge in Ohio.  Jennifer Brunner is the Secretary of State and Ted Strickland is the Governor.  It seems logical to assume that Brunner will see that all precincts across Ohio have their fair share of voting booths and equipment.  Ted Strickland's GOTV machine will be in full swing for Obama in November.  One would hope that absentee ballots will be mailed out well in time to Ohio voters living both domestically and abroad.

    In Pennsylvania, Obama will have the powerful support of Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.  Does anyone really think Obama will do any worse than Kerry did there in 2004? (Kerry won Pennsylvana by about three points - 51% to 48%).  

    As an interesting side note, Clinton's victory over Obama in Ohio was only 8.7 percentage points - 26,000 votes smaller than her victory appeared on election day, now that all the absentees and provisionals have been tallied.  And in Pennsylvania, where provisionals haven't even been counted yet - Clinton's margin of victory is just 9.2 points.

    So remember - the Democratic party machinery will be in full force in the ever-turning-blue states of Pennsylvania and Ohio.  And I believe they will catapault Obama to an electoral landslide.

•  tips / recs for an Obama landslide.

  by ObamaManiac2008 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:46:27 PM PDT

•  I read a post at

  Mydd that Obama is weak and the Democratic leadership should force Obama to put Clinton on the ticket.  I thought this was way out of line.link

  by mouser68 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:52:19 PM PDT

  •  It's just propaganda. He can't put her on the

    ticket.  It would be outrageous.

    by ObamaManiac2008 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:53:13 PM PDT

    •  I agree but the

      post was from Jerome Armstrong.  This carries weight over there and framing his argument to the fans that way is not a good plan.

      by mouser68 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:56:26 PM PDT

      •  Jerome just doesn't think objectively......

        He's a Clinton partisan and sees everything through the Hillary campaign's narrow lens, which includes the insistence that "Obama will lose to McCain."

        And that Hillary-biased notion shapes his perspective on all the electability factors, such as polling and messaging and consideration of the political environment, rather than letting those things shape his perspective on electability.

        Right now the polling shows it would be a close race vs. McCain with either Obama or Hillary, and that they simply would be fighting a slightly different electoral college terrain.

        The Hillary camp's dynamic argument really boils down to "the black guy can't win," based on assumptions rather than data or reliable circumstantial evidence.  The data they use, when they use any, is flimsy and easily contradicted.

        The dynamic reality is that Obama is the presumptive nominee; that once the dust has completely settled and Hillary admits it, Obama will enjoy a polling bounce putting him up on McCain by 5-15 points (a broad range, yes, but impossible to narrow any further than that right now); and that everything that happens thereafter depends on the candidates and campaigns rather than Obama's race.  The fact is that Obama's race already is factored into voters' thinking...he's been running for President since early 2007 for God's sake, and everyone knows he's black.  So if he's running even with McCain now, it goes without saying he's not going to lose by 10 points in November because he's black.  He can, like any nominee of either party, lose by 10 simply by running a poor campaign.  But nothing the Hillary bots point to today supports their belief that Obama can't win.

        In contrast, there's far more data and circumstantial evidence to support that Hillary can't win in November and further would cause us major problems downballot.

        by DCCyclone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:25:43 PM PDT

        •  The problems downballot alone would be enough

          to argue that Hillary shouldn't be the nominee.

          Then you throw in the fact that Obama will be leading by every metric at the end of this primary, and there you have it!

          by ObamaManiac2008 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:30:52 PM PDT

      •  not really

        JA carries absolutely no weight within the party, and nobody is picking VPs based on anything he has to say.

        by itsbenj on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:08:00 PM PDT

  •  He is weak in some areas.

    None that Hillary Clinton will help him with, though.

    by Anarchofascist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:49:46 PM PDT

    •  Aren't they all?

      I can't think of a candidate, at least in the last 40 years, that doesn't have their weaknesses.

      by mouser68 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:19:37 PM PDT

•  OH & PA I think for sure

  I count both in my minimum 322 EV projections but I don't rule out FL as it is in my 459 EV projections.

  It's incredibly important as you pointed out that in both OH & PA, Obama and the Democrats control the machinery of power, plus, gosh-darn-it, people in those states generally like Obama.

  The edge that Obama has in this race against McSame is multi-faceted. He has the issues on his side, even more so since McBush has flip-flopped so much in the process of garnering the rethug nomination. Secondly, He's not old and no matter what anybody else says, Age is going to be a problem for Johnny. Additionally, and again, as noted, in these two states, he has the machine.

  by PointGuard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:56:47 PM PDT

  •  Old people vote Point Guard

    Don't discount that.  If you keep throwing age at Mccain, he'll throw inexperience back at Obama.  Don't do it.

    by The Third Way on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:09:48 PM PDT

    •  Nobody has to throw Age at McSame

      Just look at him. Just listen to him. He's from the past. He even draws that attention to himself. Obviously he is going to appeal to older voters. They normally like the experience thing even if it's the wrong experience.

      Bush's largest margin of victory over Kerry came in the highest age demographic. Kerry won the change crowd but the country was not quite as ready for change in 2004 as it is now with so many people believing we are on the wrong track.

      by PointGuard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:16:53 PM PDT

      •  Reagan was how old?

        Do you understand age doesn't matter, especially if you're elderly yourself? Young people generally don't vote, go ahead, prove me wrong.

        by The Third Way on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:39:38 PM PDT

        •  McCain is no Reagan eom

          by Anarchofascist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:48:59 PM PDT

        •  The quotient of young people voting in

          Democratic primaries has increased astronomically.  They are making up a much larger percentage of likely voters these days, especially with Obama running.  Reagan was in his sixties when he was first elected President.  McCain is in his seventies - totally different ball game.

          by ObamaManiac2008 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:50:22 PM PDT

          •  Reagan was 69 in 1980

            Born in Feb 1911, just be careful throwing age around,it could backfire.

            by The Third Way on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:11:48 PM PDT

            •  Who's throwing age around?

              I'm sorry was someone throwing age around?  I think you were the one throwing age around.

              by ObamaManiac2008 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:26:05 PM PDT

    •  All Obama has to do is stand on stage with

      McCain.

      The contrast will be stark.

      by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:32:47 PM PDT

      •  Yes I completely agree. I mean who do most

        Americans want in their living room for the next four years?

        by ObamaManiac2008 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:33:54 PM PDT

    •  If they do, toss back the "executive" qualifier.

      McCain's experience is almost entirely legislative. He showed real incompetence by the way that he ran his presidential campaign into the ground last summer. If he ever had any executive ability -- he was an admiral's kid who never even made it to flag officer -- he clearly doesn't have any left now, after over 2.5 decades of atrophy.

      Oh, and then there's judgment, wisdom, temperament, character, intelligence (both IQ and EQ), education -- the list goes on and on. Obama is the one with executive ability (shown by how he's run his campaign), he's actually taught constitutional law, and the President's oath is to execute the office and uphold the Constitution:

      I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

      by SciVo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:56:09 PM PDT

      •  Sorry, accidentally left out "recent"

        ...as in, McCain's recent (since 1982) experience is almost entirely legislative. My bad!

        by SciVo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:09:07 PM PDT

•  Unfortunately Florida will be nearly impossible

  it's not Obama, it's the fact that the state govt is heavily republican, and we saw what happened in 2000. Ohio and PA should both go our way

  by Johnnythebandit on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:58:37 PM PDT

•  It's the White vote Obama Fans

  In PA she won every age group of white voters, even 18-29

  Here's the link:

  PA Exit Poll

  In Ohio, she won white Dems 70-27%, and white Indepenendants 53-45%

  The link:  Race/Party Info on pg 3.

  Oho exit polls

  Now, I think Obama brought this on himself, by mishandling Rev Wright and the bitter comments, but he can fix it, by talking about how he will create jobs and fix gas prices, two issues that directly affect working class folk of all colors.

  Let's hope he can.

  by The Third Way on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:06:24 PM PDT

  •  lol. You are too funny.

    By the way - those exit polls in Ohio are OLD.  She didn't win the state by 10.4 points, but by 8.7 points, that's a much narrower margin which isn't getting reflected in the exit polls currently.

    Also, you are discounting the effectiveness of Operation Chaos.  Please read my previous diary.

    Thanks.

    by ObamaManiac2008 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:27:26 PM PDT

  •  Fix gas prices?

    What's he gonna do?

    Plant some oil?

    by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:33:55 PM PDT

•  I think it is rather tenuous...

  to compare any results form the primaries to what will happen in the General Election.

  The primaries (at least the later ones) were about two individuals who had broadly the same politics. Also, it was mainly Democrats voting with a few independents and cross-overs.

  The choice was familiarity with traditional politics, the Clinton legacy and perhaps some intent to reward Bill for his presidency versus an inspiring voice for change in politics and attitude. The younger and wealthier preferred change and hope, the older and more traditional preferred what they felt they knew.

  In the GE, all such issues are moot.

  Although there may be a few militant Hillary supporters who will vote McCain, the vast majority will be looking at the issues and deciding on whether we want more Iraq, more old Washington and a worse Economy.

  The pollsters want us to worry about marginal differences in statistically subsampled demographics as that is how they make their money. Hillary is just picking the ones she wants to justify her staying in the race. Fortunately, the Superdelgates weren't born yesterday and wont fall for this irrelevance.

  by CarmenT on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:06:59 PM PDT

  •  Ohio's a Red State Carmen

    I wouldn't be so quick to make it bllue, just because the gov is Democratic. And PA is tricky, rural PA is more like Ohio than a North Eastern state.

    by The Third Way on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:13:46 PM PDT

    •  Ohio is pretty much full-fledged blue

      1.  Jean almost lost her seat in a HEAVILY Republican district

      2.  Gubernatorial

      3.  Huge excitement for Democratic races primaries etc.

      4.  Sherrod Brown

      5.  Taft scandals / coin scandals = bad taste in voters' mouths.

      6.  Very low fundraising in Ohio for Republicans, but huge fundraising for Dems in Ohio.

      by ObamaManiac2008 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:29:21 PM PDT

      •  When was the last time Ohio voted Dem?

        In the General Election 1996?  How about FL 1996?  Clinton both times.  Oh and Fl are Generally red in Presidential races.

        by The Third Way on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:43:32 PM PDT

        •  In a pure election, Kerry won Ohio.

          Please read the Rolling Stone article.  The Dems control the machinery now.  Obama will win Ohio.

          Gore didn't even contest Ohio in 2000 and he only lost by 3 and a half points.  Right now, it's a blue state.

          by ObamaManiac2008 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:51:42 PM PDT

          •  Rolling Stone Is Your Political Source?

            C'mon, you can do better than that,

            by The Third Way on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:58:43 PM PDT

            •  Oh please. Rolling Stone has excellent

              writers.  Did you even read the article?  I am now convinced you are a Republican and I have nothing further to say to you.  Try redstate.com.

              by ObamaManiac2008 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:59:59 PM PDT

•  Should Kathleen Sibelius be the VP

  for Obama I think she will help in Ohio where her father was a very popular governor and she grew up in Cincinnati.

  by rccats3 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:34:01 PM PDT

  •  I agree. She's my second choice behind Bill

    Richardson.

    by ObamaManiac2008 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:34:58 PM PDT

•  I think OH is gone, but PA is a definite win n/t

  by debrazza on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:36:26 PM PDT