...and even some Republicans that Clinton simply hasn't, and to bring out African-Americans in numbers not seen before.

I don't think he can win Georgia, South Carolina, or Kansas in the general election. But Iowa, Missouri, and Colorado? Absolutely.

goergia, kansas, colorado, missouri, north dakota.
 All of these are red states that had more democratic primary voters then republicans, and they're all states won by obama.

I'd say all of them are in play for obama.

regardless, this post once again shows just how much of a clinton shill you've become.
 Jerome.

McCain is not merely disliked, but outright despised, by the GOP base. Huckabee's little rally won't be enough to stop McCain from winning the nomination, but it does demonstrate how half-hearted Republicans are about McCain. Romney's supporters immediately ran to Huckabee.

There was a reason McCain was left for dead last summer -- he's got Bob Dole syndrome. He's been around way too long and made way too many enemies in his own party. Frankly, the only way to encourage a lot of those people to show up next November would be a chance to vote against Hillary.

8000 republicans voted in the north dakota caucus.
 18 thousand demnocrats voted.
 i'd say north dakota is in play.

to that vein comparing it to Nebraska is irrelevant, because we don't know the republican numbers for Nebraska.

How about, all of Kerry's states (252 electoral votes, 270 needed to win) plus:
NH (4)
Iowa! (7)

and then any one of:
Ohio (20)
Virginia (13)
Indiana (11)
Missouri (11)

And even if Clinton did better in the non-standard FL primary so far, there's no reason to think the state wouldn't be in play with either candidate. NM's 5 votes are also clearly in the mix, with either candidate.
And these are all scenarios in which Obama doesn't pull out any more surprising red-state wins (CO, e.g.).
Is either Clinton or Obama likely to lose any state Kerry won, in a much more adverse political climate?
There's a very high chance for Obama to take all the key swing midwestern states listed above.
With Clinton, on the other hand, everything may well ride on FL. I see fewer alternate routes for her, since neither AZ, NM, NV, AK have more than 6 votes apiece!

The biggest problem Obama has is that he can't bring out the blue collar vote IN BLUE STATES.  These are exactly the voters that McCain will target, a la Ronald Reagan.

If he can't win over Hispanics/Latinos in places like California, and CA goes Red, it's over.  Period.  Over.  Obama has not demonstrated his ability to win over CORE Democrats that Clinton has.  And there's this cocky attitude that he and his followers are espousing that they'll automatically vote for him.  Newsflash:  There's a reason McCain is going to be the Republican nominee; his ability to snag these Reagan Dems.

And by the way, Soltare...why is it when someone brings up legitimate points about Obama, it gets nasty?  Pretty pathetic, dude.  Living in your state known as "Denial" isn't going to change the fact that there needs to be a coherent strategy to win 270 electoral votes.  

As for the battleground states in a McCain and Obama general election, it's a fair question.  

First, Iowa is in the bag.  It went for Bush in 2004.  Take a look at recent poll numbers there for McCain v. Obama.

Then, beyond the usual suspects, I would start with Missouri, Virginia, New Mexico (where Obama tied despite 43% of the state being Latino, he won lots of their votes), Nevada (strong inroads upstate at the caucus), and Colorado.  Those would be my candidates for early attention from Obama.  But it's hard to say where the battlegrounds will be.  I think it's safe to say that we'll be looking at a different map this year.

Plus, I don't think Obama should concede Latinos for a second, and even as the primaries go on, I expect Clinton's lead here to start to erode.  I think he has a great chance of getting those votes against McCain, since they're breaking so heavily Democratic.

Lastly, we need Obama's crossover power in those states you mentioned where there are crucial downticket races.

The West offers fruitful pickings

Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado. I might note that Montana went for Clinton in 92, that North Dakota was close in 92 and 96. These places are not hot places of reaction as some suppose and they have recently elected some good democrats or already them (Dorgan is a hero of mine). My assumption is that Hillary or Obama will try to get some of those states in play.

I can tell you from the ground in Ohio that Hillary WILL NOT win here. Of everyone I regularly discuss politics with, only one person said that they would vote for her over McCain. I think Missouri holds a much better opportunity for either candidate than Ohio, which is in my eyes not really a swing state (because neither candidate has positioned themselves as a centrist as Bill successfully did). Consider that it was thought to be a swing state in 2000 and 2004 and the Democratic Party wasted millions here. They should invest that money in Florida or Missouri for a better return.

Jerome,
I don't think he has one. He's running a chicago style machine campaign where winning the primary means that you automatically win the election.

Looking at the electoral college, I don't see how he puts together a winning coalition. SUSA had him tied in MA so he could be running a campaign where he's desperately trying to keep the blue states. And he can't assume that he's going to keep the Kerry states. He probably won't win PA in a general election.

That's a nice piece of spin from the Obama camp, but of course it has no relation to the general election.

If you think that a Democrat will win Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Georgia or South Carolina, I've got a bridge in Manhattan you might be interested in.

Realistic swing states are Iowa, Ohio, Florida. With Colorado, Missouri and Virginia as a possible 2nd tier of swing states.

So if Obama wants to make the case that he has a better chance of winning, he'll have to show that he can do better in those states. I'm certainly open to that argument, but so far I don't see it.

In any case, though, any Democrat has a good base to work from: Democrats are fired up and will go out and vote. Republicans aren't enthusiastic at all currently.

Obama will win the exact same way he is winning the Democratic primaries/caucuses.  He will bring out a lot fo first time voters and win over independants.

Fact is, the democratic party is pissed at the Republicans.  I don't think there will be a single problem motivating the base to vote against him.  Kerry was able to motivate the base in 2004, getting the second most votes in the history of the United States.  Unfortunately, he lost the independants to Bush.

Obama has brought out tons of first time voters, specifically in colleges.  I remember going into Iowa everybody was saying he couldn't win because it was Jan 3rd and all the students were not in class yet.  Well, he still won with the help of a TON of young voters.  Fact is, Obama inspires them while Clinton doesn't.

Not to mention the fact that Clinton doesn't have high approval numbers with independants.  In all of the open primaries Barack beats her by like 20% among independants.  Barack has a good shot at winning these people compared to Hilary.

Not to mention, if Hillary is the nominee, whe will be the biggest motivation for the Republican base to turn out, more than McCain ever could be.  Barack doesn't get the hatred and I have a hard time seeing James Dobson emphatically saying McCain would be a great president.  I can see him telling his flock that they need to vote against the antichrist Hillary.

So in closing, I think Barack can bring out more than enough new voters and winning independants to win the Kerry states along with Ohio, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia and Florida.  I think it will be a landslide.  Just look at whom the senators from red states are endorsing??  Who do they want at the top of thier ticket??

Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, North Dakota, Missouri, Virginia.  That's for starters.

And given the way Dems have been turning out this year, and the hatred of McCain by the Republican base, you could see Obama take a lot more than that.

As for Hispanics?  They're sure as hell not going to vote for McCain over Obama.

With McCain as the nominee you can forget about AZ turning blue for either Dem candidate.

Some company needs to conduct state by state GE match up polling like Rasmussen was last year. Those polls showed that while Hillary wasn't the strongest in national polling she was the candidate most likely to win 270+ electoral votes because she would flip Arkansas and Ohio and put a few other red states in play. Everyone needs to stop paying attention to the national GE polling as long as we still have an electoral college.

I have yet to see anything that suggests Obama can break 270. Dem primary vote turnout in some red states looks good, but they will still be red in November.

arizona and florida against mccain?  is it possible to find out what she was smoking, because it must have been some great stuff?

the folly on arizona should be obvious.  sure, democrats are doing better there in recent years, but clinton's vaunted political machine can't even take out lil ole obama, let alone arizona's favorite son.  this is a senator who has consistently had had one of the highest job approval ratings among senators in his (or her) state.

the clintons have been trying to organize florida forever.  well, they (finally) elected alex.  but that was for a seat no one cares about and for which she was perfectly qualified.  1 out of 5 ain't bad, right?  anybody want to ask how many republicans and democrats took ballots in the state?  like i said, clinton must have some great shit!

i don't have a clue what obama's general election strategy is.  the one thing about obama is that he doesn't look past the next election.  strangely, though, he was asked about how he could win "downstate" illinois when he came before the ivi-ipo endorsement session.  he said then that he would "run everywhere" -- which isn't the same as running everywhere in the electoral college -- and earn people's votes in the red counties.  my relations in rock hard republican taylorville said they saw and heard more from obama than they did of any of the republican candidates.

part of obama's strategy in 2004 was stretching the field.  another part of it was dominating the message and coverage of the race.  obama used his friendships in the state senate as local reconnaissance for media and issues quite successfully.  he had a rather interesting ability to pull information out of them and then conjure up their voices when talking to local media about local issues.  needless to say, this went over quite well with the downstate press that feels neglected in illinois politics.

another oft-overlooked strength was the obama campaign's successful use of oppo to, well, destroy the opposition in 2004.  in his u.s. senate race, he used oppo successfully against his four main opponents (two democrats and two republicans) that left those campaigns confused, off message and disoriented.  not only was the obama himself successful in "pulling the trigger" (something the clintons refused to do against gingrich, if i understand their knowledge of gingrich's affair correctly), but he continually did so without leaving his fingerprints on it.  yep, the media loves obama, and he's not afraid to use that power for his own (or, quite frankly, other's) electoral success.

hailing from florida, i'm not so stupid as to think that any democrat is likely to win the state without a massive infusion of resources into it.  but i would imagine that obama takes the kerry states plus iowa, new mexico, maine, ohio, missouri, colorado and stretches the field in mississippi, alabama and montana.  obama actually adds votes to hillary's coalition.  women won't be lost to democrats because of the threat of the supreme court hanging over their heads.  electing a women, in that sense, is only an extra.  and latinos just don't know barack yet; when they do, they will be as excited as the rest of party.  add to that a much greater turnout among young people, african americans and independents (that hillary is destined to lose to mccain).  it's a much broader, stronger and more appealing coalition of voters that again stretches the map and wins for democrats...

He stands next to McCain in a debate.

Obama takes NJ, NY, and all of New England. DE, MD, DC, and Virginia. Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin. Out west he takes California, Oregon, and Washington. And Hawaii. Add Missouri, Colorado, and Virginia.

Total: 271 delegates

That's losing Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida and not winning a single mountain or southwest state other than Colorado.

bullshit, the evidence that they will turn blue is that democratic turnout in a lot of them is 2-1 in favor of the democrats.

the repubs have no excitement and a dissatisfied base.
 the democrats have a charismatic leader in obama who turns out the base like no other, and pulls in moderates and indies.

not to mention he seems made of teflon, what scandal is gonna stick on him? rezko? how long has that been out and nothing.

rezko is a joke.

Obama won't have to spend any money in a lot of the swing states where Kerry had to work: WA, OR, WI, MN, Maybe NH as well. The only big defense is PA.

That means he can concentrate his resources on OH, IA, MO, VA, FL, CO, and NV. Maybe NC, GA, and SC if he has the resources. We don't have enough polling to know how this will shake out; I think there was one that showed IA big for Obama, so maybe MO is his next best bet.

because of the unprecedented number of under 50 year olds and African Americans who will Crash the Gate.  Republican turnout will be depressed.  Obama will eat into suburban and Midwest small town/rural evangelicals.  

In States: Iowa, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.  If things start to landslide, then fantasies include Georgia, Kansas, Indiana, North Carolina and Louisana.

Why would someone under 50 years old vote for McCain?  

I have to say I'm disappointed in this site's bias in favor of Clinton. It's become clear in diary after diary (particularly you and Beeton) that you are shilling for Clinton. It's not really even subtle anymore.

Through the years I have come to this site for unbiased assessments of political situations. - Numbers and analysis of those numbers. Kos is repetitive in shilling for Obama and pointing out how republicans suck. MYDD used to be the oasis away from that. Not really anymore.

You guys are biased and backing the wrong horse. He can win the general election through the reasons listed above by previous posters, chiefly: he will grab independents wanting something new, the repubs don't know how to attack him, and conservatives would come out in droves to vote against Clinton.  

The idea that Obama is less electable than Hillary in the general is not well-founded. From where I sit it is quite apparent that Obama attracts a diverse following that crosses demographic lines, including red/blue and ethnic lines. I see it in my family, my friends, and it's apparent at his rallies and in the broad base of his political and financial support. A majority of this country is not rabidly partisan, even in the present red states (some of which weren't red as recently as the '90s).

Hillary, on the other hand, mobilizes the red base to vote against her, and I fail to see how she sees any greater demographic advantage over McCain than does Obama. Republicans (many of whom would vote for Obama over McCain) will come out in droves to vote against Hillary, and at the same time will lend their support to local candidates. If you want to see bigger Republican numbers in the legislatures (state and national), vote for Hillary.

Obama's coalition? How about the unprecedented number of individual donors? How about the enthusiastic support of individual voters, which quite clearly is far beyond any other candidate in either party, with standing-room only crowds at every rally, in every state he visits.

I get a bit weary of poorly-conceived arguments against Obama, eg., he's a good talker with no policy or real plans, he's not progressive enough, his followers are a cult, etc. I say take the time to read and understand his policies. To me they appear for the most part to be progressive and pragmatic. And as far as questioning whether he has a plan, give him at least a little credit for performance to date. Seems like his plans are working out pretty well. And as for the "cult-of-personality" complaint, I think people are justifiably enthusiastic about an excellent candidate. There will always be a few bad apples, flamers, etc. in any group.

I also agree with a poster above that this blog doesn't seem even-handed in it's treatment of Clinton vs Obama. Always excellent coverage of the electoral mechanics, but seems like Hillary is always being promoted.

Let's start with Obama holding the states that John Kerry won in 2004, which is 251 electoral votes.

Obama made an impression in Iowa and I believe he can turn it back blue. A Democratic governor and his  bordering state connection helps here.  Add 7 electoral votes, now at 258

Obama has done well in New Mexico without a Richardson endorsement.  Richardson will certainly campaign heavily for Obama whether or not he (Richardson) is on the ticket and with heavy turnout for Senate and House vacancies, I think it turns blue again.  Add 5 electoral votes, now at 263

Obama narrowly won Missouri, which raises the question of whose endorsement meant more:  Kennedy or McCaskill?  (I think the latter.)  With incumbent Republican governor not seeking re-election and Democratic candidate doing well, African-American and college town support and same neighboring state connection, I think Obama can squeeze out a victory here.  Add 11 electoral votes, now at 274 and he is the 44th president.

Beyond this scenario, there is no question that Colorado and my state, Virginia, will be in play.  He will have won both primaries and with Mark Warner running for Senate here (and winning big I might add) and Tim Kaine and Jim Webb behind him, I see a good chance that Virginia turns blue.

The scenario for Obama's election is alot clearer to me than a scenario for Hillary Clinton.  Not only do I think she will have trouble holding all of Kerry's states, but she would not be able to turn Iowa and she would probably lose Missouri.  

Obama's the man to win...no question about it!

Jerome's calculations and predictions have been wrong (and in favor of clinton) so often that they have nbo credibility whatsoever.

after all she won maine, amirite?

All due respect Jerome, but you're being disingenuous. Obama is going to get the same votes Hillary does (except, apparently, yours) and he'll get the votes of Independents and Republicans that she will not get. The Latino vote? That's not the key to winning. But even if it would, I have a hard time believing that they'll vote for the party of Tom Tancredo.

I have heard Clinton's [strategy] many times, and its been played out in the Democratic nomination battle...

Yes. Well. How's that working out for her?

I really only have a single issue: winning.

Obama, from here, looks like a winner. Hillary, from here, looks like a loser. Things can happen, but cut the guy some slack, OK? What does he have to do to impress you, anyway?

ohio is for the dems to lose in '08. I don't think hrc has a distinct advantage over obama here. the economy has been shattered and distrust of the gop is very high. one ad showing mccain admit that he knows nothing about the economy should close the deal.

The Republican "respect" for Obama will not preclude them from eviscerating him with 527 ads, however.

The word of the year 2008 will be "Obamamania".

After Obamamania fades after the Democratic convention, the word of 2009 will be "Gerontocracy".

Every state.  

Obama has shown a grassroots ability to organize in every state.  Republicans will target 10 states and Obama will target some states as well while hitting everywhere else with his grassroots ability.

Much like Feb 5th where he was way behind and yet managed to win based on superior volunteer organizing.

The question of "Where, which state?" is a question from democrats who have repeatedly lost elections which they should have won easily because they are massively out of touch with the American public (especially in red states).

in short the strategy is:

Target More States and run a true national campaign.  Not a 50 state strategy, but a national campaign.

Yes, we can carry Virginia.  

Are you one of the people who thinks the Jim Webb or Tim Kaine campaign was a waste of time?

100 years in Iraq is soooo independent. More more wars is so much change I can hardly stand it. "Bomb Bomb Bomb - Bomb Bomb Iran" is a policy Indies can get behind.

McCain's Surge is working I tell you!!! Working! So is his election surge. Republicans so dont want this man, because Independents want more war, a lot more war! War on their Wheaties, war on the phone, war in the halftime show!

BTW, cough, this is sarcasm.

The polls all show Obama beating McCain ---Already!

70 to 30 folks -- Clinton is going to be a great Senator, the Senator of Universal HealthCare - Obama is going to wrap this and drive drive drive to a January 20th swearing in.

The 'attempt' to create an issue around the man ahead in the polls is silly.

I mean he has no chance in a place like Montana, where we have a Democratic Senator and a Democratic governor.  So he has no chance in North Dakota, where he may be the only candidate to campaign.

Everyone was wondering how in the heck Obama was going to put together any sort of strategy to beat Clinton.  He's ahead in pledged delegates (I still can't figure out why CNN manages to allocate all of the California delegates but only 1/3 of the Colorado ones, but maybe I'm a moron).  He will still carry all the states Kerry carried - California, Mass, New York, New Jersey - those states aren't suddenly going to become Red states because they liked Clinton marginally better.

But look at Kansas.  Democratic Governor, Republican party in Disarray, McCain gets slammed by the locals, and Obama crushes Clinton.  Hillary would never campaign there; Obama has.

South Carolina?  Combine a Republican electorate that flat-out doesn't care with a super-energized Democratic base.  Is it a shoo-in for Obama?  No.  But is it within the realm of possibility?  Sure.

Virginia?  Obama appeals much more to the Kaine/Webb supporters than Hillary.  Plus in a 50%+1 strategy like Clinton has, she'll never set foot here.

This ignores states like Iowa or Ohio who could flip as well just because they're swing states.

If It's Obama vs. McCain, the question isn't whether Obama wins, it's whether he breaks 400 EV's.

-Fred

I have to laugh when I see the polls recited about how well Obama will do against McCain in a general.  Let's have some facts here:

1.  Obama's had a pretty easy ride so far in the press.  By and large, there's been no real vetting of him. A lot of cheerleading (e.g. MSNBC), but that won't last.  He will be heavily scrutinized if he becomes the nominee.  

2.  There's been NO defining him by the GOP yet.  McCain is a known quantity.  Clinton is a known quantity.  Obama can (and will) be negatively defined by the GOP.

3.  Despite the naivete that is suggesting that Americans hate the war so much that they'll never elect a Republican president, here's another flash:  MOST Americans are not ideologues.  And they still want someone who can be considered competent on matters of national defense.  Obama's at a very serious disadvantage here.  Simply saying "I was against the war" isn't going to cut it against McCain.   McCain has supported the war, but he was very critical early on about Rumsfeld's failure to adequately bring enough troops into the theater.  Given that it's been demonstrated that superior numbers of troops can have a positive impact on the war effort, many people will see his criticism and judgment as correct.  Additionally, the economy is now eclipsing the war as the topmost issue on voters' minds.  When money is already tight, no one wants to hear about higher taxes to push progressive causes.  It's a losing argument right now.    

It's pretty amazing that Clinton, for all the so-called negatives against her, does just about as well as Obama vs. McCain, and she's had TONS of dirt thrown at her over the years.  He's had zip.  That free ride is going to end quickly once the GE campaigning starts.  

There is no plan.  Please pass the Obama Kool-Aid.  I'm thirsty.

A lot of optimism from the Obama supporters, but not as much analysis. I've long thought VA was a GE possibility for Obama, but against McCain he will have a real problem with voters aligned with the military. This is true across the south, but particularly in VA. I'm not sure why MO is a favorite target, Kerry lost by over 200k votes and Obama relied on urban St. Louis to win the primary, does not bode well for the general.

Iowa I can see, he's got anti-war Dems and he may win some Republican evangelicals from McCain, especially if he keeps de-emphasizing culture issues like choice. I suspect softer stances on culture issues are key to his strategy, just as religious imagery is key to his appeal in the primary. With women's and gay rights taking a lower profile in his campaign he may be able to erode theocon support for McCain nationwide, while helping him with socially conservative African Americans and Latinos. That kind of coalition would put Ohio and maybe Colorado in play. This would be an interesting reversal for Republicans; racism, specifically evangelical universities losing tax exempt status because of segregation, created the theocon movement.

Obama can't afford to explain this strategy in the primary, it would look like a betrayal of Democratic base groups.

How has Obama divided the Party? because he stood in the way of the "inevitable" Hillary?

A few weeks ago you had no idea how he was going to knock off Clinton, and even an objective observer should be able to tell he now has a 60%-65% chance to win the nomination at least

I see a few scenarios which could happen.

1.  Obama versus McCain puts a lot of the south in play - if only because a fair number of wingnuts won't turn out for McCain.  I'd say Virginia and North Carolina might actually swing our way this time.

2.  He could have great appeal to moderate republicans and conservatives in the plains states and out west.  

What ever happened to the 50-state strategy?  Obama has a message that finds some level of resonance throughout the country.  I don't think he needs to micro-target the states, just be potentially competitive with McCain everywhere and see what happens.  

Honestly, your posting this seems incredibly irresponsible at this point in time.  Like it or not, Obama is slightly favored to win the election (though I don't count Clinton out just yet).  It's one thing to criticize someone on policy, but do you really want to help build the meme that the likely nominee "just can't win?"  How does that help to elect more and better democrats?  Shouldn't you be building up Clinton instead?  

She'll take an unprecedented high level of MEN, YOUNG PEOPLE, INDEPENDENT VOTERS and AFRICAN AMERICAN SUPER(DUPER)-majorities (BECAUSE OF INCREASED TURNOUT), not to mention winning almost all (or nearly all) the states that John Kerry or Al Gore won, and add in: Georgia, Virginia, Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado.

GThe idea that Clinton is going to easily win Florida or Arizona is no more of a joke than the idea that Obama is going to easily win Georgia or Virginia. All four would be hard-fought battles.

He was wrong on many of his previous points.

about the time you listed John McCain's home state as one Clinton would win.

Tell me again who's smoking something?

I think the strategy is obvious.  The point about citing these large red state victories by Obama is not to argue that those particular states will vote Democratic in the fall - they won't.  The point is that Obama is getting Independents to vote for him all over the country, and is also generating enthusiastic turnout levels.  There are a number of important swing states in this election, as there were in 2000 and 2004, and the results in those states will be determined by how Independents vote, and by turnout.  Democrats will vote for him enthusiastically, but these crossover votes will put him over the top in the key swing states.

Clinton has shown no such ability to collect Independent voters.  And she can't get her supporters to turn out and support her publicly in caucus states.  One gathers her support beyond a limited hard core is weak and unenthusiastic.  Polls also show she hits a very firm electoral ceiling, a ceiling which is not going to go away due to the fact that she is already very well-known to the public.  She also doesn't poll as doing well in a head-to-head with McCain.

Democratic Party

And create the largest generation of turned off voters in the history of the Party.

Please think about what you are doing. Clinton has no path to the nomination that doesn't go through a breaking of the rules and a crisis of validity.

Think about what you are doing. If it is really your intent to bring HRC almost to the nomination where it will create this crisis, your loyalty is not to the poor, to the environment, to ending war, providing healthcare or rescuing democracy.

Your loyalty is to a person, at all costs, and it must not be.

Please come out for Obama now. Save the country.
by: HousesofProgress [[at openleft.com]]
Edwards rumour growing -Endorsing Obama  (0.00 / 0)
To Opinion makers across America!

The time is now to rally and build to a general election win. Do not allow the Democratic Party to be destroyed by Shakespearian folly.

Exactly, a Shakespearian Tragedy. In three acts. Bill S. couldn't have written it any more poignantly.

The drive to serve is admirable, to serve now is to rally around Obama.

Let's think about the overall context here:

1) The country hates the Republican Party right now.

2. The economy is in recession and it will be worse by November.
   
3. Independents will lean Democratic this year.
   
4. These factors affect the entire country.

Obama will have no problem getting blue collar white Democrats in PA, OH, MI or elsewhere. Their preference for Clinton over Obama to this point is more an indication of nostalgia for the Clinton years than a rejection of Obama. Plus, with the economy in the toilet, no way do these blue collar voters go to McCain. This is no 1980 where blue collar Dems could blame the Democrats for the economy. McCain's appeal among these voters is overstated.

Obama will have higher black turnout than even Kerry and Gore had. Whether that puts him over the edge in the Deep South is hard to say. Obama was very impressive win in Georgia, and that state's GOP may have peaked there already. But I doubt SC, LA, AL or MS will be as close as GA.

Obama wins the Independents. Every poll shows Obama taking Independents from John McCain. These are voters McCain needs with a depressed base on his side. We all agree on this. So where do they come from? Where will the contest be decided?

Virginia
Colorado
Iowa
New Mexico
Nevada
Ohio
Missouri
North Carolina

The most natural pickups for Obama are Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and North Carolina. Those are perfect Obama states in many ways - lots of Indies, "authenticity voters," blacks (NC and VA at least), white collar Democrats, trending Democratic.

OH and MO will go to Obama on the strength of the black vote in cities and the Indies and disaffected blue collars angry at the GOP. Also, Obama neutralizes some of the religious right appeal in these state with his comfort in discussing Jesus. That will matter a great deal.

Nevada and New Mexico sided with Clinton in the primaries but are trending Democratic overall. I firmly believe that Obama will work for and attain Latino support by November. Obama will also cut into a portion of the rural white vote in these states.

Wildcard? Someone mentioned gun control. But McCain is distrusted by hardcore gunners, and Obama won't even bring it up. Like hardcore antiabortionists, gun nuts are a factor. But they won't be as big a factor in the South as racism. That's why the only Southern states Obama will win are the states that don't look so southern anymore - Virginia and possibly NC. Florida is tough because of McCain's appeal to retirees.

So, what can Clinton get among these states? She might get OH, NV and NM. And maybe IA. But she loses VA and CO, and she might even lose WA, MN, WI and OR to McCain.

Obama has beat Clinton in organization, strategy, enthusiasm and analysis.  Clinton's campaign strategy seems to have been, "Lets win some big states and knock everyone out."  Obama's strategy was "Let's compete everywhere, keep the Clinton favored races close and win the others handily.  Let's compete in every congressional district, to earn delegates where Clinton thinks she is going to sweep a state."  I mean, the stark difference between the skill of the Obama team and the Clinton team is striking.  You ask what his general election strategy is?  I ask, is Clinton's general election strategy anything more than spin and hot air?  Does she believe that she can win on her name recognition without competing?  I don't want her campaign team anywhere near the general election.  In fact, if she wins the nomination, I really hope she fires them all and hires Obama's.

There is NO WAY Hillary wins Arizona against McCain.  He will get enough of the Home State boost to rally behind him before its all done.  As for Florida, yes she has an advantage, but I wouldn't say its a slam dunk either espcially if McCain adds Crist to the ticket.  Same with Nevada.  McCain doesn't exactly have the typical GOP immigration record here.

As for Obama, He will run a 50 state campaign most likely rather than 50% +1 Hillary will run.  I have a feeling that you might be able to turn a few states by ACTUALLY paying attention to them in the GE.  I think he has a shot in the Midwest and West especially if Richardson is his VP.

Either Clinton or Obama will paint McCain as the continuation of Bush policies, and it is a charge that will stick (because, conveniently, it is true).  McCain is also not terribly savvy -- look at his bonehead remark the other day about not knowing much about the economy.  

The most recent numbers (e.g. Rasmussen) have independents as about 30% of the population.  This is the key demographic to win, not black/white/latino/asian/male/female.  Independents are almost by definition not ideologues.  They will let slide a candidate who disagrees with them on a few issues that are not terribly important to them (e.g. guns) so long as they agree on the main things (e.g. Iraq was a bad idea) AND so long as that candidate makes them feel good.  I know that sounds fuzzy, but that appeal to the heart instead of the head is how a heck of a lot of voters make up their mind.  Sure, they later tell pollsters that they voted for candidate X for reason Y, but that is only their brains trying to come up with a logical justification because someone asked.

So, the question then becomes who can win the independents, and I think it is hard to argue for Clinton instead of Obama.  National polls show Obama winning independents from McCain, while the reverse is true for Clinton.  Also, Clinton is likely to increase turn-out among Republicans.  

That said, I don't think there are enough data to determine with any accuracy which states Obama is more likely to win than Clinton or vice versa.  A decent metric might be to take the results of the 2004 election and reconfigure the math based on how Clinton/Obama would do.  I guess that Clinton supporters would argue that she would increase Dem turnout while Obama supporters would argue that he would get a higher share of the independent vote.  Is that a fair assumption?

I know one thing, you dont like Obama. Who will you vote in VA.

Isn't this the same line of reasoning that got us John Kerry in '04? Who wasn't as electable as we thought?

We've shown that we can't predict what voters are going to do the night before a primary (see NH, etc), the idea of trying to predict who will win in hypothetical matchups nine months in advance and basing our nominee on that is laughable.

Both Clinton and Obama are competitive with McCain in current polls, which is good enough for me to resolve any electability concerns. Those polls are going to change or may stay the same, but I'm not going and try to predict it.

This isn't 2004 - Democrats have majorities in the House and Senate, and this country has seen four more years of Bush's incompetence in the White House. I don't think we have to settle for second-best this time.

Judging from the comments, Obama's GE strategy is to talk a lot about all the states Hillary wouldn't win.

Obama is making a case that he has the potential for  a real mandate and to stop this 50% plus one strategy.  Reagan after all won what, 40 plus states?  So to sit and say it's "laughable" that Obama might win certain red states is acting like the last 8 years of narrow electoral differences is the way it always works.

It doesn't take a huge national popular vote win to get to a win in the huge majority of states.  in that sense the red state/blue state divide is overblown.  So Obama is rhetorically speaking about the possibility to make a big wave election rather than trying to target and pick off 4 or 6 swing states.

I find that rhetoric and indeed that possibility attractive.  That's not to say that swing state targetting won't be part of this campaign.  But to pretend that Obama's rhetoric somehow demonstrates his inability to understand swing states and the electoral college is a bit silly, no?

>Of everyone I regularly discuss politics with, only one person said that they would vote for her over McCain.

Yes, that's convincing.

You can maybe when a primary season with this defensiveness but it wont pass muster in a GE- why? Because unlike now, there won't be a lot of people who will naturally because of party affiliation who will forgive your tantrums. I can only hope many of you realize one day.

My theory is that people in the red states are crossing over to vote AGAINST Hillary.  Obama isn't going to win any of the red states.

It's like someone else said, when they hear that Obama was endorsed by Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Moveon.org and wants driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, they'll go RUNNING into McCain's arms.

And they don't like Hillary either, mind you.  However, Hillary strongly wins our blue states, and some swing states (Florida) will likely have sour grapes unless she wins and will go home.

So I don't really believe either candidate will win, however, I think Hillary has a better chance.

And BTW, Obama largely wins undemocratic caucuses.  If all states held primaries, I don't believe he'd even be in the game.

Jerome,

You're embarassing yourself.  Are you seriously shilling for the corporatist neocon DLC candidate over the grassroots movement progressive based on some specious "electability" argument?  Isn't that exactly what you started this site to put an end to?

As for electability, here's your argument.  Based on the 06 results and the fact that the mood of the country hasn't changed since then, I'd say ALL Dems have a structural advantage to start in all of Kerry's states plus IA, NM, OH, and CO.  That's plenty to win.  Even if you accept your questionable racist argument about Latinos, only NM from that list is emperiled for Obama.  Second, there are more independents than Latinos in almost every state in the nation, and (check the polls), they are generally close to as anti-war as Democrats.  Why again are they going to vote for Mr. "100 more years of Iraq" over Obama again?  I think Obama will put some "purpling" red states in play this year moreso than Clinton, including Virginia, Missouri, and Montana (to be fair, Hillary would likely do well in at least VA and MO from this list, too).

Honestly, I don't think that either Hillary or Obama has an "electability" problem this fall.

And while that may come to pass, the best reason to nominate Obama is the possibility of winning big (55-57%) with coattails that pick up a few more Senate seats than Clinton would.

It's all about closing in on 60.  If we can get there by 2010, anything's possible in 2011.

But if it should be close, the answer would be: Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, Missouri, Ohio, Florida.

Obama is likely to lose New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Michigan, and Ohio if he runs against McCain. He won't be able to make it up anywhere else because he will lose all of the southern states including Arkansas, Tennessee, and Florida which Hillary is likely to win.  Hispanics will split between him and McCain and in fact McCain might win a majority of hispanics. He is the weakest GE candidate we can put up against McCain. He will lose in a landslide to McCain and is likely to take a number of congressional candidates with him.

Can any of the Obama supporters put together a plausible (not pie in the sky) scenario for him to win the GE against McCain?

Sorry but if its McCain vs Clinton, NV is off the map by October.

Clinton on the ticket costs us almost all of the approx 15% of registered Dems who identify as "conservative". Obama did very well with these voters in the caucus.

As for women, we've tried in 2 cycles (02 and 06) to win statewide races based on pulling over ind and gop women in Clark and it just hasn't worked.

What we need is  a candidate who can both build on the gains we've made in Washoe and Nye among independents (Kerry ran almost even in both in 04). Obama polls best among independents by a wide margins.

Moreover we need a candidate who will commit to the expensive, time consuming work of building a large enough field program to mobilize less=likely voting Democrats in CD1. Obama is already well along that path.

This is brilliant analysis, Jerome.  Thanks for bolstering the oh-so-democratic HRC campaign to convince supedelegates.  

But seriously, aside from the essentially ridiculous inference from primary victories in a state to GE wins in that state, FL in particular wasn't even contested! Hillary's done nothing at all, even granting the primary-GE connection, to show that she can win a contested election in FL.

He isn't a Senator.  He is a Representative from the 12th Congressional district in California.

My prediction is Kerry states + Iowa, Colorado, Missouri, Virginia, New Mexico, and possibly Nevada and Ohio. Obama's not as strong in Nevada or Ohio as Clinton is, but I think he's a stronger candidate than Kerry and draws more turnout than Kerry, so since Kerry came so close in those two states, I think Obama can win 'em.

No way will Obama win all those Southern and Western red states he performs well in, but it will make Republicans waste their resources putting out all those fires and will help us downticket, so it's all good.

They're both totally viable. The extra turnout Obama's been driving will make every swing state on the map a nightmare for Republicans-- they'll probably still win FL for example but it'll cost 'em the big bucks. If Democratic turnout is up by anywhere near as much as it's been in the primary this thing is over.

Thank God we still have a chance for an Obama candidacy, which doesn't have to draw to an inside straight in order to win the Presidency.

Jonathan was spot on when he said Obama had the better chance of getting a "realignment" victory.  IMHO, Clinton's ceiling is 51%.  I also think Obama has a better shot against McCain b/c of his appeal to independents, ability to turn out more voters (yes, I can still remember how this was mocked pre-Iowa), and CLEAR CONTRAST from John McCain.

I don't think electoral chess matters if a candidate can get 53-55% of the popular vote.  But if you insist on analysis based on the old way of thinking, I think Obama holds all of the Kerry states and adds CO, IA, VA, and MO.  This is a very conservative projection.

More importantly, every single Democrat running for Congress, Governor, or the state legislature will be proud to share the ticket with him - in every region and across the idelogical spectrum of our "big tent."  THIS is how you bring real progressive change.

This is a pretty silly post. Hillary's going to have to win some of the red/purple states that Obama has beaten her in to win the general. The real question is whether Hillary's plan makes sense!

She's only running strong in Democratic strongholds. Tell me how a person wins the General with only the states that Gore/Kerry won? Dukakis did great in Massachusetts too, didn't he?

His plan? Win the blue states, win the purple states, make McCain spend money in the red states! Hillary's plan...win the blue states...and? Arizona? Against the sitting senator of the state? Please!

How about this. Before we get into whether Obama's strategy is winnable, find me a SINGLE poll that suggests Hillary could do better against McCain than Obama!

So, Obama will lose because White voters are racist?  Good argument.  Again, you people really have no clue about PA or NJ.  These states are simply NOT going Republican this year, period.  Especially PA, and especially with Obama.  Philadelphia and Philly suburbs are perfect demographics for Obama. He specifically will get record turnout in both areas and win 2/3 to 3/4 of the total vote there (probably >90% in Philly and around 60% in the burbs).  That is half the state population, and half of the rest of the population is Pittsburgh.  Tell me McCain is going to carry 3/4 of the vote in the city of Pittsburgh to win the state.  I dare you.  McCain will win 80% in Pennsyltucky, but it's not enough, not even close.

You even left off the nastiest attacks I've seen here, like:

He is mentally ill (thanks to the armchair psychiatrists...).
He was doing coke with gay prostitutes.
He is a drug dealer (oh wait, that was the Clinton campaign...).

Obama was also mocked for "running a general election campaign in a primary."  Now, he doesn't have a general election strategy?

Hard to square the circle on that one.

When was he EVER accused of running a GE in the primary? Never. That was always something thrown at Hillary.

Okay, here's another problem you guys also are failing to address. By using caucus data as support of your theory that Obama will win handily, you are ignoring the fact that only 10-15% of the population came out to vote in the caucus. Karl Rove pointed out that in Nebraska there are 375,000 registered Dems and only 36,000 came out to vote? You guys are dreaming if you think this is representative....

Republicans: 572,869

Democrats: 370,600

In Nebraska.

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2007 /12/30/news/politics/doc4776dd0caea8b171 580917.txt

So okay, Obama won 9 out 10 caucus that favor people who can leisurly come out on a Saturday and not blow off work.

This is dangerous water we're swimming in.

Also, 2.8 million registered voters in Louisiana.

How many came out? Oh yeah, about less than half of that.

Please, stop drinking the Kool-Aid, we will lose another election.

Touche, dude.  These people citing the turnout at caucuses as some harbinger of a Dem winning a red state are naive to say the least.  Make inroads?  Sure.  Win outright?  Why would Republicans crossover to vote for Obama or stay home?  It makes Zero sense.  

Kerry 2004, IA, MO, OH, CO, NM, VA, thats a 317-221 win

What I see in this thread is that all of the cynical, pro-Clinton arguments revolve around demographics and comparisons between now and what happened to Kerry, or Gore, or even Dukakis. None of these candidates had the grassroots and financial support that Obama has, nor do they any of them have a fraction of his charisma. I even see some people saying he was the weakest of the three main candidates, even after Edwards' weak-ass showing in the polls and Clinton's underhanded, dying-a-slow-death campaign. Obama's a winner, and he's showing all of you cynics up, day by day.

Besides, McCain's old, and doesn't even have the support of his base. What a bunch of hand-wringing over the electability of a candidate who has set records for individual donors and has truly energized the Democratic party. It will be a pleasure to see the cynics proven wrong.

I see an excellent opportunity for Obama to simply destroy McCain in the general election. Here's how:

1. He will split the evangelical vote 50/50 with McCain. Evangelicals are almost 50% of the G.W. Bush electoral coalition. Bold prediction, but here's the evidence:

a. It's obvious that they hate McCain, otherwise why would they still be overwhelmingly breaking for Huckabee, who's not even conservative otherwise, and who has no chance of securing the nomination? As a group, they're definitely "in play," and the most conservative ones will likely sit this one out as long as they're not unnecessarily antagonized by the Democratic nominee (i.e. they will turn out to vote against Hillary).

b. Even without Obama in the picture, there has been a movement amongst evangelicals away from partisan, moralizing conservativism toward the "other" side of Christian teachings, i.e. concerns for the poor, justice, peace, etc. See organizations such as Sojourners for more on that.

c. Obama has already built inroads into this group through black evangelicals who usually make it the vast majority of the 10-20% of blacks who do vote Republican. He has a Reagan-like personal story of conversion later in life that has a great appeal and his rhetoric definitely incorporates some religious allusions.

d. The younger progressive evangelicals will be drawn by the opportunity to partially redeem America's racist past through the election of our nation's first black President.

2. Independents, which has already been covered.

3. Massive increase in turnout from blacks and younger voters, which has already been covered but should not be underestimated. 40% of the electorate tends not to vote, but that will not be the case this time.

So, McCain will be decimated from the right with the Republican religio-conservative base (again almost half of GW's winning coalition) either staying home or splitting their votes between him and Obama, and with Obama taking the independents based on the war issue, and with record turnout amongst the heavily Democratic base groups of young voters, and African-Americans, I see Obama putting a whole host of traditionally red states throughout the South and the West into play.

Latino will come around to Obama. They are not voting against Obama, as much as for Hillary. McCain has already been forced to back off of his liberal stand on immigration and if he tried to tack back to the center, Obama will pillory him for flip=flopping.

The rest of Hillary's primary coalition consists of the Democratic base and they will be enthusiastic about the chance for our Party to make history and Obama is a solid liberal/progressive by any measure. There is no reason why Hillary's voters will not come over to Obama.

The interesting thing to me is that (IMO) both Clinton and Obama win or lose different states.  Overall I think either has a strong chance to win in November.  But where there is a strong blue collar white population I see Clinton doing better than Obama up against McCain (ex: Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia).  On the other hand, clearly Obama will carry some indies/mods that Clinton won't.

Besides the Kerry states I think Clinton will win AR, IA, NM, maybe NV, maybe VA, maybe MO, maybe OH

Besides the Kerry states I think Obama will win IA, OH, CO, VA, maybe MO, maybe NM, maybe NV

I don't think either will win AZ with McCain as the nominee.  I never count on FL; too many vote counting shenanigans there.

You have to remember, we're running against a very weak candidate.  McCain's "Straight Talk Express" nonsense is going to get ripped to shreds in the GE.  He's going to have to flip-flop all over the place to placate Wingnut Nation, and he's going to look like a fool.  He's already having to answer questions like "Would you have voted for your own bill?"  And as an added bonus, it's very easy to tie McCain to Bush Administration policies.  I can see why the real hardcore conservatives are pissed that McCain is the nominee.  Unless the D nominee stumbles badly, McCain is going down.  He's painted himself into all sorts of corners.

All of this "Obama can't win" and "Hillary can't win" stuff is pretty ridiculous, shameless shilling one's own candidate of choice.  I'm an Obama supporter but I will proudly support Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination.  When November rolls around we are going to be running against pure evil, and all of this primary stuff will be forgotten.  

I've been following this thread with fascination. As an Obama-leaning voter in Maryland, I could be persuaded to switch if I thought there was a really solid argument for Clinton's greater electability--but I'm not seeing the evidence.

Jerome says that the primaries are playing out in a way that demonstrates Hillary's ability demonstrates her ability to win in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Florida. How so? Surely the Florida primary doesn't demonstrate much, given the absence of campaigning there. New Mexico was a virtual tie--if anything, I thought it demonstrated that Clinton's edge among Latinos is only an edge, not an overwhelming advantage. And Clinton's margins in Arizona and Nevada weren't wide enough to convince me that she has a much better chance of beating the Arizonan Senator there.

Moreover, Jerome and those who agree with him are asserting that Obama will lose Ohio and Pennsylvania, and perhaps some large states that are bluer than Pennsylvania--but I'm not finding their evidence for this. Maybe this will be clearer after the Pennsylvania and Ohio primaries.

The National Journal just ranked Obama as the Senator with the most liberal voting record. Getting the Kennedy and Kerry endorsement is great for a primary but not that helpful for a general. We can quibble at the votes that NJ used but that was the same line that was used against Kerry in 2004. Obama is no John Kerry and hopefully he will respond to the incoming attacks but the ads are there to attack Obama and the Republicans are waiting to use them i.e. guns, gays and God in the South and Midwest. I think the Democrats need a serious debate without all the media  cheerleading about the electoral potential of each candidate and what they can bring to the table.

The man has been running a General Election strategy since day 1! Going into deep GOP strongholds and campaigning there.

Your candidate of choice does fantastic in areas that nearly always vote for Democrats (New York, my home state of California), you can't really say the same thing for Kansas, Alaska, etc.

This post is shameful Jerome, and I would expect it coming from an old style party regular who believed "crashing the gates" is a fairy tale.

Obama is about expanding the playing field, and he's doing it!

He's not going for 270+1, he's going bigger then that, and he can do it.

If Hillary were to try, she might be able to pull it off too (to a lesser extant), but it's not the strategy.

Interesting that the Clinton campaign's new talking about is exactly this though, strange co-incidence.

-C.

Well since people are smart enough to use the internet to post on a blog but not smart enough to use the internet to do some quick math based on a map, I will do that for you guys.

I am going with the assumption that ALL blue states in 2004 sans PA and NH are automatic Dem wins.  The only one that doesn't automatically play out in my mind that way is MN and only if T-Paw is the Veep candidate.  So that said both candidates start out with 227 EV and need 44 to win.

First, Hillary's GE scenarios.

She is a big state contender, I think we can all agree on that.  High unfavorables in the rural areas make smaller community based states hard for her but she could do very well in states with large urban population.  I would consider her strong in 1st and 2nd ring suburbs but getting exponentially weaker in the outlying areas.

(With PA and NH)

CO is a very strong possibility of pickup with Democratic wins in 2006, same with OH.

That alone is a win.

Keeping CO and giving her AR, where the Clintons are still pretty popular puts her over the top as well.

FL alone does it.

(Without PA and NH)

A run of OH and FL would barely squeak out a win.

Either FL or OH along with CO, AR, and NM could do if she can carry any number of small states.

MO, CO, and FL would be a winning combination even if she loses PA, OH, and NH

Obama map.

Obama has a better chance of taking some midwest states where the Clinton is a four letter word in a lot of households.  (please Under, Ga6th, linsam don't attack me out of hand because I stated something that while true, is not what you agree with)  He doesn't play as well in the steel belt states because Hill is just more popular with low-middle income blue collar dems.  Higher income indys would gravitate towards him as well.

(With PA and NH)

NC becomes winnable in this scenario.  The high tech cooridor plays well to Obama's strengths as well as the demos in general.  This was a 10% loss in 2004 but has a 21% indy break.  High turnout among the neuvo rich and AA gives him 15 of the 19 he needs.  Any small pickup works here.  NE, NM, NV, etc.

A run of IA, NV, NM, and CO.  All closely won Bush states that are trending heavily blue in the last couple of years.

Another "small state" strategy that would work would be going heavily in the mountain west and midwest.  These are small states where a really fired up base could make the difference against a slightly indifferent GOP base.

A run of something like MT, ND, SD, WY, NE would put you just an LA, NM, or NV from winning.  Don't tell me it is impossible either.  Every single one of these states elected a democratic Gov, Senator, or Rep in 2006 and Reps might as well be Senators there.

The standard 1 states win would would too.  OH or FL.

Another would be LA, CO, and any other state.

Where I will concede the electoral math gets trickier is if he cannot carry PA and NH.  It requires an OH or FL win along with a combination of states above.

The point is, anyone with any desire whatsoever to do the electoral math and theorycrafting can figure out decent GE strategy for both.

This was also leaving out of the equation states I really believe are in play for both candidates this year like VA and MO.

Can we stop the "my dad can beat your dad" sniping about who is more electable?  They are both electable, they just won't be able to use each other's playbooks.

And what is Clinton's strategy?  Campaign in NY, MA, and CA, and nowhere else?  Wait for those magical demographics to carry her to victory?  That's been such a winning strategy for us in the past.

From the looks of it Jerome it advocating eking out a win by getting Kerry's states plus one or two more.  I don't think that strategy has served us well in the past two elections.

Obama's strategy isn't to aim for 271 electoral college votes.  It's to aim for a landslide.  If he falls a bit short he'll still win the election.  

Sure North Dakota may not be the most likely candidate, but Iowa, Colorado, Missouri, (Virginia, Ohio, ....) why not?  

And how are Arizona and New Mexico likely states for Hillary when Arizona is John McCain's home state?

There are two main reasons Obama will lose in the GE:

a) He will not take the latino vote with the kind of margins Hillary can take. Read today's Chicago Sun Times article about how Obama lost Latino vote to Hillary in Mayor Daley's own wards in spite of aldermen there asking them to vote for him. If McCain merely breaks even with Obama on this critical demographic it will hurt Obama significantly everywhere.

b) Most of the working class, culturally conservative, white democrats (the Reagan democrats) are not voting for him in the primaries and will not vote for him in the GE given his far left liberal record and pro-gun and soft-on-crime positions. Republicans will make sure that everyone of these voters find out about every one of his controversial votes in Illinois state senate including his controversial votes on partial birth abortion.

These two factors alone will be enough to bury him in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

He is not going to win any of the red states in the west or in the south. He will not win Missouri, Louisiana, Ohio, Arkansasn, Tennessee, or Georgia all states Bill Clinton carried in 1992.

Obama is a disaster waiting to happen in the GE.

The wealthy and educated liberasl who are voting for him in droves are most ignorant when it comes to what the heartland likes. They liked McGovern, Ted Kennedy, Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown and Howard Dean. And now Obama. After their selfish choice they will go back to living their lives just fine while the rest of us get another eight years of Republicans: no universal health care, continuing war in Iraq and so on.

Frankly, Jerome, after prematurely forecasting Obama's demise at least a half dozen times I thought you'd know better than to pretend an ability to divine election outcomes still 9 months away.  I won't do a state-by-state analysis because I can't, but the truth is you can't either.  All I know is that any candidate who has squandered as many institutional and popular advantages as Hillary Clinton has only to start losing pretty badly to a man who is 4 years removed from the Illinois State Senate can not be considered a shoe-in for any national election ever, not the least a contest against one of the few remaining popular figures in the entire Republican Party.

Scratch that, I also know that Obama has already demonstrated an ability to increase black turnout and youth turnout while at the same time attracting crossover support from Republicans and Independents.  Certainly that can't hurt.  Right here in Omaha, NE, we saw turnout for the caucus in heavily African American North O simply explode on Saturday.  North Omaha is the only thing you could seriously call a Democratic stronghold in this state, and turnout in many precincts is a pathetic mid-to-high 20s even in presidential elections.  If Obama continues his political alchemy in the general election, turning these non-voters into activists, then we will see Democratic prospects improve fantastically in our races for House and Senate.  Hell, we might even see NE-02 come into play on the presidential level.  

I know that's some pretty fancy dreaming, but I can guarantee you that there is plenty of blood,sweat and tears to back it up.  Obama has a core of activist support here that is dedicated to working for him in a coordinated campaign with our local and federal candidates.  And if that's the story here in Omaha, I can only imagine what's going on in the rest of the country.

Right now Obama is running about 5 points better than Hillary Clinton versus McCain

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/national.html

A five point advantage translates into a clear advantage in most states.

One example is Survey USA has Obama up 13 on Mccain in Iowa, while Hillary trails McCain in Iowa.

Now that poll may overstate the difference but I will make my point simple.

If Obama has a 52-48 advantage over McCain he will win the election. If Hillary trails McCain 52-48 she will lose the election. Right now that is roughly how the votes breakdown.

In this scenario Obama would carry pure swing states like Wisconisn and Iowa by a safe byut slight margin (say 4-5 points) whereas Hillary would conceivably lose those states by a comparable margin.

Also in this scenario Obama would put Republican leaning swing states like Ohio, Florida and Missouri into play while Hillary would lose those states.

So Obama's path to victory is really simple. Carry the Kerry states and add Ohio

Then ice the victory with narrow wins in additional states including perhaps: CO, NM, MO, VA.

Incidentally, versus McCain neither candidate wins Arizona. You can't give Hillary Arkansas by default and then say she beats Mccain in Arizona...each probably carries there swing state.

Ultimately, Hillary can pick up Arkansas and Obama won't. Aside from that state I don't see where she has a significant electoral advantage over Obama in any other state. Sure she might not lose Tennesssee by as much and she might carry California by an extra point or two and she might ride a bigger victory in New York, but in terms of electoral math the candidate who is polling 5 points better in the popular vote comparison is also likely to fare better in the electoral college...its really simple math at that level.

Also, people are way too focused on primary results in this thread. Just because Clinton beat Obama among hispanics by 2 to 1, does not mean most hispanics will jump ship and vote GOP if Obama is the nominee. And just beacuse more Democrats cauacused in North Dakota than Republicans, doesn't mean Obama has a chance in North Dakota.

Everybody take a deep breath...reality checks will come again and again this election season, and as long as Obama keeps winning states by 20 points any claim that he is less electable than the candidate he is soundly defeating is sheer silliness. However, if Clinton trounces Barack in Ohio and Texas then perhaps Jerome has a point. We shall see.

Jerome you read my mind.

Thank you for bringing up this point that everyone glosses over.

The problem with Obama is that he may win a lot of independents from McCain but he will lose a significant number of Reagan Democrats in the Midwest, a significant number of Latinos in the West.

He can expect to carry most states in New England and Mid Atlantic.  He may carry one or two states in the South (also AA votes will not be a big factor considering they vote for Democrats anyway).  He will have significant trouble in the Midwest (except his home state).  He will also have significant trouble in the West as well.

Kerry's state that Obama will have trouble with: MI, PA, WI, MN, CA (17+21+10+9+54=111).  He can expect to lose the first two (38).

Bush's state that Obama will have a chance: VA, MO, OH, CO, IO (13+11+20+9+7=60).  He can expect gain al of them except OH (40).

So he will perform similar to Kerry.

GE is so far away.  Polls don't mean much.

So far Obama's ground game has been stellar, while Hillary's has been lackluster.  Terry McAuliffe and Mark Penn are not exactly a dream team.  The main reason I voted for Obama is because I don't want either of those guys and their proven failure of a strategy anywhere near the general election.  

Are you even trying anymore.  This is like calling WA and LA for huckabee before they are done.  It's just lazy thinking.  I know you're smart, but you seem incapable of seeing outside of your box.  This diary doesn't even merit response it's so slow.

This is laughable in oh so many ways:

1.  Arizona is John McCain's home state.  The snickers should be enveloping the site.

2.  New Mexico's votes are still being counted.  Assuming she does win, Hillary Clinton could barely beat Barack Obama in the Dem. Primary in N. Mexico;  Now you have her down as beating John McCain in the general without difficulty?  Who's drinking Kool-Aid?

3.  Hillary Clinton did not win Women in Missouri --  Barack did.  In our nation's pre-eminent swing State she couldn't win amongst Women.  Putrid data for your core argument (she'll win women everywhere in the country!! Or something)

4.  You can't "give" Florida to any candidate at this point in the cycle.  Too much time, too difficult a State to predict.

5.  You forgot Arkansas, the only actual State where Hillary can legitimately switch Kerry's numbers.  More snickers should envelop the site.

Obama is leading the woman who shares a name with Bill Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President, in votes and delegates.   Obama is killing Clinton among Independents, and attracting more GOP cross-over voters.   And your question is how he can be viable in November?  You're clearly not being serious.

gort256 "will lose a significant number of Reagan Democrats in the Midwest,"

Gort, Hillary didn't win Iowa (IA, btw) or Missouri.  She didn't win among women in Iowa or Missouri either.

Furthermore, we'll see next week, but she's about to lose Wisconsin by double-digits.  Barack can saturate Milwaukee with his Chicago volunteers, the two cities are quite closely connected (culturally & historically & ethnically), and Barack is also likely to win in Madison which is extremely liberal.

And sure, Caucuses only mean what they mean -- who has really enthusiastic support.  So we know there are a whole lot more very enthusiastic Obama supporters in Minnesota than very enthusiastic Hillary supporters.

This is such a tired issue, and honestly, I can't believe that Clinton supporters are still making it.

File this under: the meme that won't die, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Clinton supporters were told, by their candidate, that she is the most "electable" Democrat running. There were always a large number of people who took that statement as somewhat bizarre and diametrically opposed to what their own judgement was telling them. However, Hillary's strongest supporters believe her when she said this.

Next to Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton is a profoundly divisive figure. While she wins a large number of women voters (nothing too Earth shattering to be honest with you), so do ALL DEMOCRATS WHO RUN. I fully expect the majority of women to support EITHER Obama or Hillary. There simply is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to contradict this. Hillary may be more popular in the Democratic primaries with women against Obama, but that doesn't mean that if Hillary should lose suddenly Obama will lose that traditional Democratic advantage.

The same goes for Hispanics. Contrary to earlier reports out of the CLinton campaign, history is replete with African American candidates who have done well among Hispanic Americans. SO the idea that Hispanics are SO RACIST that they could never bring themselves to vote for an African American is patently untrue AND, quite frankly, an insult against Hispanic Americans.

This article, and others like it, demonstrate what Hillary's real problem is; and ultimately that problem contradicts the findings of this editorial by Jerome Armstrong. Hillary does well among the traditionally Democratic base. She does well among women, hispanics, and for a time, African Americans. But she only goes so far, and then no further.

What Jerome fails to mention is how poorly Hillary does among male voters matched up against McCain. How poorly she does among white voters matched up against McCain. How poorly she does among independent and disaffected Republican voters matched up against McCain.

This is why she is the weakest candidate of the two.

She has lost the independent vote against Barack Obama in EVERY SINGLE CONTEST so far, save Massachusettes. Obama is winning the support of Democrats in the REDEST OF RED states.

That is ultimately why Obama polls better nationally against McCain than Hillary does. This has been shown in the last seven or eight polls. There is no denying this anymore. This is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, not some hunch or regurgitation of a Clinton meme that has long since been discredited but her supporters seem content in dispersing despite its fallacious conclusions.

Saying something over and over again doesn't make it any more true. There is NO EVIDENCE showing Hillary doing better than Obama, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

This is just something her supporters have to come to grips with.