Obama has shown the ability to get young, single women to turn out in droves.  

important data.
First,
Clinton loses to McCain in New Mexico 51-42 - the same margin as Obama loses New Mexico by.

Other comparisons are listed below.  Note that Clinton trails in 4 states that Kerry won.  I find McCain's strength in the Pacific Northwest particularly surprising.  

Overall, Obama does better in the Pacific Northwest, and in Wisconsin.  Clinton does better in Minnesota, Missouri and Virginia (though she still loses by 9).

Bottom Line: if McCain is the nominee, we are in big trouble regardless of who wins

New Mexico: McCain 51, Clinton 42
McCain 50, Obama 41
Wisconsin: McCain 49, Clinton 45
McCain 46, Obama 44
Minnesota, McCain 49, Clinton 45
McCain 49, Obama 42
Virginia: McCain 52, Clinton 43
McCain 52, Obama 40
Missouri: McCain 50, Clinton 44
McCain 51, Obama 40
Oregon: McCain 49, Clinton 45
McCain 47, Obama 47
Washington, McCain 49, Clinton 46
Obama 52, McCain 43

If you really think that the Dems, even an Obama-led Dem ticket, have any serious concern about losing Massachussettes this fall, then frankly -- I think I'm done putting much stock in anything you write until this primary is over.

I mean... come on... that's ridiculous and you know it.

You're smart enough to know a hypothetical GE horserace poll doesn't mean much, even now.

Obama loses to Massachussettes to McCain?

I bet I could get investors together to stage that faux race -- just so I could make you a huge bet on the outcome -- if you'd promise to cover expenses when you losee.

u dont speak for all gays.

I am gay, and i'd still vote for Obama.

yeah - I was really pissed off about this too. But I will not be a single issue voter. Single issue voting is just a bad, bad idea.

That said, the one thing that doesn't fit with the image and coalition that Obama is building is his strangely backwards view on the homos. Still, if Obama can continue to do what he is doing, re-energize the electorate, bring youth back into politics, this will be so good for America that it will indirectly help gays immensely, whether he intends this or not.

if necessary and vote for Obama, if he wins the nomination.

I don't think two or three more Alitos on the Supreme Court would serve the gay community well.

In Iowa Obama won the plurality of men and women voters.

In New Hampshire Obama got 34% of the female vote, more than twice that of John Edwards.

And in Nevada Obama got 34% of the female caucus goers again.

This suggestion that the "white vote" won't or doesn't go for Barack Obama is presposterous. You have no evidence for it.

Now, Barack Obama DID run truly poorly among white Democrats in South Carolina over 60. I'm not going to hide or dispute that; he was running against a native son who had won SC in 2004. But to do, as some have done, and translate that to the rest of the country is to ignore the history of the Democratic Party.

(And remeber Obama won 52% of all whites under 30 in South Carolina. That's the real story here. That's moving history.)

Yes, I am. And that's what we are supposed to do.

Obviously, since your "Hillary is Inevitable" argument depends entirely on perceptions of inevitability and talk about polling in states before a single vote is counted, of course you are going to discount results!

I've got a harder time discounting, you know, the actual results from caucuses and primaries.

Vox made an assertion that Barack Obama runs poorly among men that is, as far as I can find evidence, simply factually untrue.

There's no evidence for that from the actual results. What the results show is:

Senator Clinton runs well with seniors and white women over 40.

Are you suggesting that Clinton can build a winning coalition with seniors, Latinos and women over 40? Or that she will run stronger with men in  general than she has so far at the actual polls?

Do you have links?

tripled in South Carolina.  The youth vote has been huge.  They've been matching their proportion of the population and been participating overwhelmingly in Democratic primaries over Republican ones.

They're certainly part of any winning coalition in November.

It was of course 22% of the vote in Iowa, which matched the 65+ vote.

You would likely have gotten a more illuminating answer from a Magic 8-ball.

I still enjoy the "Personal Journey to Obama" posts, but I am becoming more and more annoyed with the attempts to provide a rational explanation for a faith-based movement.  I mean, if the reason you think he'll do the right thing in office is that a little bird told you, then just say that so we can stop probing for a real answer.

Incidentally, I may be coming back to Des Moines in February.  Sounds like it's even colder than the last time I was there.  Probably a lot easier to find a hotel too.

that I didn't realize your involvement and commitment to local politics. My comment on dkos  came off wrong.  

Maybe to your ears, citing Andrew Sullivan and then saying to me, "How can you prove that Barack Obama will be a true progressive?" isn't pretty much begging the question. But that's what it sounded like to me here...to be honest.

One place to start, that Samantha Power, one of Obama's foreign policy team references pretty persuasively in the Charlie Rose interview at that link is that Obama's career starts with that choice to leave Wall Street and go work on Chicago's South Side as a community organizer for three years.

I mean the entire arc of Obama's career, studying in Harlem at Columbia U, community organizer on the South Side, Harvard Law where he serves as President of the Law Review, then returning to the South Side to register voters, work on civil rights, run for State Legislature, teach Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, raise his children on the South Side, pass progressive laws in Illinois on civil rights (taped police interviews, anti-profiling) and health care, education and welfare reform.

That is not the career arc of someone who really has much to do with Andrew Sullivan.

No offense, but please use a bit of common sense, you're saying to me...with everything we know about the history of the Clinton presidency and their relationship with progressives on NAFTA, DOMA, Welfare Reform, Sister Souljah, "school uniforms", "mend it, don't end it," campaign finance reform, and the general Clinton m.o. of loyalty to all those Frends of Bill...

knowing all that...you are losing sleep because Andrew Sullivan hearts Barack Obama???

I'm much more interested in the coalition that Obama is building based on the results in actual primaries where, you know, people have voted. That coalition has a pragmatic consequence. We can win elections and pass our ideas into law.

No one is bringing together more Democrats of more differnt backgrounds. That builds a winning Democratic Coalition that can actually get us to universal health care, out of Iraq, innovating a new technology agenda, pushing for energy reform and bring millions of young Americans into a political process where they will participate for a lifetime as Democrats.

Sullivan, imo, has nothing to do with that and never has.

If you want to fiind at least almost feasible understanding regarding Obama on a deeper level than the shilling found here I would advise checking out Paul Rosenberg's post over at OpenLeft. It's  bit intellectual, but its on the money about giving voice to the concern, and there are some able responses to his critique of Obama as well that won't result  in either condescension like this or in your question being generally ignored in favor of shilling.

OK.