that favor their man.

Obamabots are buying Obama's product without reading the warning label in the back of the package.

I suspect it won't if we don't count their delegates.

DNC will lose FL if their votes are disregarded.  DNC need to show respect to the voters. They have been very arrogant so far.

I'm inclined to agree with you that we shouldn't extrapolate these numbers, but when faced with either Obama or McCain, I'm sure groups such as Cuban-Americans will divert right to McCain (they are traditionally Republican) and others might as well.  The reason is simple enough - Obama has said that he wants to go into direct conversation with American "enemies" including Cuba.  That's definitely not something they want to hear.  I think the same argument could be true of Iranian and Korean communities.

I think that could be extended to any of these groups (Catholics, Women, Latinos, African Americans).  Voting, as the diarist discusses it here, is not a zero sum game.

In all recent national polls, Obama has been leading McCain by a larger margin than Clinton.

First, though, let me note that you cannot use uncompetitive Senate races for a comparison - McCain has NEVER faced a competitive race for his House and later Senate seat (at least judging by the final results.) Using your argument, Obama is a sure bet in 2008 as he would pull 40% of the Republican vote, as he did in his 2004 Senate race.

Anyways, none of the national polls that I could find have crosstabs. So I used the 3 recent SurveyUSA state polls - Indiana, Washington, and Kentucky. They offer a decent mix: Obama does about the same as Clinton in Indiana, better in Washington, and worse in Kentucky.

Notes regarding Indiana:

• Obama does a bit better than Clinton among males, a bit worse among females. Pretty expected.
  
• Obama does better among 18-34 voters, worse among 55+. 35-54 is a draw
  
• Clinton wins a bit more of the Hispanic vote. But that's only 2% on the sample - 10 surveyed, so a huge margin of error, and I would mostly discount that. Same thing goes for the African-American vote - I don't expect McCain to get 33% of it in November.
  
• Somewhat paradoxically, Obama wins more moderates and less independents. Overall, he does better among conservatives and Republicans than Clinton, worse among Democrats and liberals.
  
• Contrary to some claims, Obama does not win any more evangelical support than Clinton.

Washington notes:

• Obama does around the same as Clinton among female voters, vastly better among males.
  
• He improves among all age groups, but especially among middle-aged voters (35-54), which he wins by more than young voters.
  
• Improves among all ethnic groups, but especially among Asian-Americans. In an interesting side-note, Clinton supposedly loses African-American voters 71-29, a result I'll chalk up to the tiny sample population.
  
• Obama does slightly worse among Democrats and liberals, but does a lot better among moderates, conservatives, independents, and Republicans.

Kentucky notes:

• McCain's Hispanic percentage remains the same in both contests, but Obama's drops a bit compared to Clinton's.
  
• Obama and Clinton receive around the same amount of male support, Clinton wins a lot more females.
  
• Obama's main loss comes from lack of support among the older generations, whites, and Democrats. I would note here that Kentucky still is a majority Democrat state, as a former member of the solid south. So the main indication is that Obama fails to win the support of the older white working-class southern Democrat types that formerly made up John Edwards' base.

Overall, I'll say that there's not enough data to either prove or disprove your beliefs.

I'm a non-Latino from SoCal, but I think I am fairly aware of Latino culture and voting habits in California. I agree with all that you say about the Latino vote, and that the Dems will have trouble holding on to the Latino vote if Clinton is not the nominee. I think what you have to say is important and more Dems need to hear this. Please consider writing a diary so everyone can hear what you say.

I'm also curious about McCain's popularity with Latinos. I see that he received 50% Latino support in his Senate elections, but I have no idea what type of competition he had and I hear very differing reports about whether he is or isn't liked by the Latino community. I'd like to hear what you think about it.

Not to highjack this thread or to start a flamewar of any kind, but purely out of curiosity, why is it the Latino community can so easily go for a rather conservative politician or liberal?  Obviously, issues like immigration and the economy matter to Latinos. But the numbers for George Bush seem really high, especially if they are able to admire Hillary so much.  Is it an identity issue?  I'm genuinely curious.

Actually, very few people know Hillary, they just think they do based on many years of disgusting media and republican (and sadly some democrats, too) venom that was unleashed against her for no apparent reason. (Because she tried to get universal health care?)

When Hillary went to NY people said she would be crushed by Guiliani -- and she just worked hard, campaigned and introduced the real Hillary Rodham Clinton to New Yorkers. They elected her twice and they like her just fine.

As Hillary introduces herself to people, people like her -- it's the Obama supporters that keep trying to make her out to be unfavorable. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- she's won all the democratic primary states when there isn't a 50% African American voting block. (not caucuses, and not red states.) This is an indication that people like her quite well, despite the medias attempt to portray her as evil in some way.

Oh so it's back to what will happen once he get's the nomination.

You know what I think:

I care about what my politicians care about, their positions  -- I don't ignore that in the future, maybe, republicans will attack the candidate -- they are going to attack whoever the nominee would be.

It could be Jesus himself and they would attack him and try to slander his name.

The Name recognition argument is valid if you believe it or not -- Clinton has been heard by everyone in the nation -- Obama has not, right now, Obama has the ability to give people information about his beliefs.

Name recognition is still not on par.

Um, Obama scores very high in voters who describe themselves as liberal.

I would like to know what Hillary is doing to help us grow the party.  I know Obama has a strong organization in places like Colorado, Nebraska, and Idaho.  Is Hillary going to help us pick up seats here or is she just going to go with a 51% strategy that causes us to lose seats?  

The problem is that Hillary would have a hard time breaking 40% among independents.  

While you can't always extapolate from the primaries, the latest poll shows twice the number of dems abandoning the party with Obama at the top of the ticket. hillary loses 1 in 10 while Obama loses 2 in 10. With those numbers you could look at losing a lot of close races downticket.

and then say McCain is more palatable than Obama. McCain has voted to confirm every single Bush judge and has promised to put more like John Roberts on the Supreme Court.

Yep, ripping the Democratic party asunder would sure return the favor to McCain, wouldn't it.  Too bad HRC wouldn't be able to afford it, given the fact that she has already loaned her campaign millions of dollars.  But enough sane talk; allow me to retort using the same sort of cliched, hyperbolic, melodramatic ultimatum:

I am a left-leaning independent male in the 18-29 demographic.  That makes me special to the Dems.

My grandfather fought for Israeli independence, so I should, by the rationale of the senior and Latino commenters, be a strong supporter of any candidate with bona fide ties to AIPAC.

I'm not.  In fact, I think that AIPAC is sometimes bad for this country.

I also think that the State Department ought to do more than dole out visas.  This requires talking with our enemies.

In every election in which I have been able to vote, the Democrats have run candidates whom I found entirely uninspiring.

But for the fact that Mrs. Clinton is a woman, I would find as uninspiring as Messieurs Gore and Kerry.

The fact that she is a woman makes her infinitesimally more inspiring.  Like, on a scale of five yawns, she receives only four and one half.

I give her the one-half yawn discount only because I love my grandma, who is also a tough lady.

I find Mr. Obama to be unlike any other candidate, and I think that people who complain that he lacks specifics should read Richard Neustadt.

I think that the party will turn off a lot of my cohort if Mrs. Clinton gets the nod.

Perhaps this is an outcome that the parties wouldn't mind, since my cohort seems to care about something besides who will increase their Social Security and Medicaid benefits.

Maybe this is because, due to the mismanagement of both parties, my cohort will probably receive neither benefit.

That said, if Mrs. Clinton is nominated, I will NOT be torn between voting for her and voting for McCain.

Why?  Because McCain is CONSERVATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!  He is not AuH2O conservative.  Hillary Clinton is AuH2O conservative.  Joe Lieberman is AuH2O conservative.  John McCain is CONSERVATIVE CONSERVATIVE!

No, I will be torn between voting for Mrs. Clinton and staying home and watching The Simpsons, or reading cases for evidence, or doing something, anything, that interests me.