Losing PA and NJ?  That's not big enough for you?

Hello?

LOL!

<snort> funny!

Michigan is a Clinton state. Don't know what's up there. Of course the African American vote in Detroit would be pivotal. I don't know if they're being mum with the pollsters considering the "uncommitted" controversy.

SEIU spent nearly $5 million promoting Obama in Ohio, and it earned him a 10 point loss.  

Lest we forget, Dukakis won Iowa by double digits, and kept Montana, South Dakota, within 6 points. While he lost by 8 nationally.

My thoughts exactly.

the libertarian vote seems to be splitting from the republicans due to civil rights, and i don't think you guys are quite aware of the liberterian presence in the mountain states and the northwest.

the "western democrat" archtype is a growing demographic, and they are decidedly liberterian.

i think he could feasibly win north dakota, just like he could win colorado

You don't understand midwest politics at all if you think that is out of the realm of possibility.

And, if after Clinton takes PA and has all the state behind her that would put a Dem in the WH, and Obama is the nominee, at least 25% of Hillary's supporters  will be voting for McCain.  Where is that reflected here?

What do you think would happen if Clinton came in with more popular vote?

What if she is more popular vote and within 20-30 on pledged delegates?

Which rules should be followed and which ignored at the convention?

Here is an interesting poll I heard on NBC. apparently about 25% of Clintons supporters would fo to McCain and 10% of Obama's would. If each did not get the nomination. I was quite surprised with that.

Not on my own convictions, but purely talking to people...there are a large number of Obama folks out there who will not vote for Hillary, a smaller but significant number who will not vote for Obama - But, if there is any reason for anybody to say she "stole" the nomination a larger block of Obama supporters will get all riled up.

Do you think all African Americans will refuse to vote for Clinton if she becomes the nominee?!  Then we have a huge problem, don't we? I thought Obama's campaign is not playing the race card.  Please don't bring up Bill Clinton and SC.  Here is what I wrote a couple of days ago in response to another post:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/4/55 38/75877/121#121

Now that is pathetic. The fact Obama is black is playing to his advantage not disadvantage! When I first heard Senator Obama in his famous speech in 2004, I was still in graduate school. I proclaimed that he'd be the first black US president. My roommate was more cautious and checked who his wife was and only agreed after finding out he married a black woman - "if he had married someone white, he won't be black enough to win the black vote!" Those were my roommate's words! Come to think about this now, it really makes me sad! The Clintons have not a fiber of racism in them. Bill Clinton was even proclaimed as the first black president. Do you know that Bill Clinton was the first president to mandate that environmental impact statements for any federal projects have to be done in connection with racial and economical background (the executive order is still effective today). This is the executive order aimed to prevent things like garbage dump sites, nuclear waste sites from being built in mainly African American communities! The distortion of his speech and intention in SC just makes me sick.

-------------------------
The Clinton administration did a lot of SUBSTANTIVE things for the African American community.  I think it would be really sad if all AAs refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton.  The fact that over-whelming percentage 87% 90% of AA vote for BO just makes me sad because honestly, there are not that many drastic differences between their policies to justify such drastic difference. It saddens me that congressman Lewis had to go through the agony to switch his vote, but it baffles and saddens me more to hear that he defines BO's potentially becoming president as the civil rights' movement's dream come true - as I see it - the real goal of the civil rights movement is that all people will be treated based on their merits and efforts not on their race, or gender for that matter.  An AA president will sure reflect a huge improvement in the civil rights front (so would a female president), but it should not be defined as the end goal.  When a decision is made based on facts, there should not be so much emotional agony.  This is a job interview and a decision should be made based on facts not emotions.

yeah no way I live in Washington state it will not go for McCain.

If you flip these two states, Obama has a substantial electoral vote advantage over Clinton.

And if you flip them all McCain wins against both candidates.  We're doomed!

I think NJ and PA would fall into line for Obama, and WA and probably MI would fall into line for Clinton. They're probably just polling badly in those states right now because partisans for one candidate are taking it out on the other in polls.

Florida will be tough but I think Clinton definitely has a better shot at it than Obama (and I say that as an Obama supporter.) Same in reverse with Virginia. It'll be tough for Obama to win Virginia but is definitely doable.

Either of them could win this thing handily. Several of the 'red' states on both of their maps will be close, and Republicans will have to dump resources in there just to maintain leads. I don't see how McCain even finds the funds to compete seriously in New Jersey if he has the rest of this disgruntled map to deal with. ND is not really going to go blue, but McCain is going to have to pay attention to it to stop it from doing so if Obama's the nominee, is how I read that. He's probably going to have to work at a bunch of other states he'd have preferred to take for granted too.

I would be surprises to see Oregon with McCain.

PA and NJ.  Not big enough for you?

Actually, there's been lots of data out for weeks that says if Obama is the nominee, California is in play because he enjoys lots of support from Hispanics, and they know him, since he is the Senator from the state next door.  Also there are pockets of some big military presence.

Cheers, as your are right on the money here, no matter how much I disagree with you elsewhere!

i think a win is in the works, but at the same time, what i'd like to see is instead of a two front war between the democrats
we see two general election campaigns begin against McCain, with the winner being the one with the more salient message.

that way we can get twice the campaigning in, while not making the other looking bad

Which Junior Senator? I mean Hillary's a Jr Senator as well.

PA , OH , NJ gone .

Did you see the numbers.

I am not saying he would lose these states but that is what survey usa shows

Clearly, a lot of the people pushing for Clinton "know" Obama can't win some of these swing state, although they usually fail to come out and say why.

In these swing states McCain and Clinton fight over the same voters.  With Obama, at least you have the opportunity bring in new people to offset his demographic problem.

Can anyone tell me what Clinton's GE strategy is?

Is it a replay of 2004, where the democrats follow the polls that say the economy is the number one issue, and the voters turn around and vote for the guy with the biggest jock strap?

Is the war going to be ignored again?

Seriously, if her plan is OH, FL, and PA, what is her strategy against McCain?

I';d like to add that with Obama, there is a plan B... if the presidency fails, we've at least increased our congressional lead.

With Hillary (who never has a plan B), if she loses, the entire democratic party may be sunk for a long time... 'cos there are no attempts at congressional coattails.

Growing in new places (e.g., Nebraska CD-2), bombing in old places (i.e., Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California, Michigan, etc.). Sounds like change to me!

Obama can win ND.. they are friendly to democrats up there, but don't like establishment figures...

Hillary will struggle in Oregon... McCain-types (like Gordon Smith) do very well up there...  don't know about Washington...

well, I don't agree with Clinton's big state electability meme, but the reality is that not all electoral votes are equal, because they are bound within the borders of states and linked to population. OH, PA, FL, MI etc. offer BIG--meaning "more"--electoral votes than states like VA, WI, WA, MO, etc. There are very good permutations for both Obama and Clinton, but on balance, all presidential candidates must realistically prioritize the Big States. And especially the Big Swing States.

Huh?  I'd rather have someone who can win in Michigan or Florida than someone who can supposedly win in North Dakota and Idaho.  

I agree, Wyoming on saturday and Mississippi on the 11th is where we should be focused on.  

/I know, I know small states don't matter, but can we at least try?

I was just gonna point that out.  But to be fair, it is WAY early for that.  I remember Electoral maps with Kerry having a blowout EV win against Bush.  

WA is going for mccain! I live in WA.

Polls like this, while the Democrats are still going at it and tthis far out from the GE care nonsense!

Progressive Blue

also from Bowers, fwiw:

Despite seemingly similarity in their performance against McCain, this breakdown shows real differences between Obama and Clinton in the general election. Against Obama, McCain's "solid" and "lean" states only add up to 123, while Obama's add up to 229. In a matchup against Clinton, the "solid" and "lean" states are of equal size: 201 for McCain, and 203 for Clinton. In other words, while McCain and Clinton appear evenly matched, McCain is only able to keep it close against Obama by running up a series of narrow wins in the toss-up states.

I agree!  They each need the other!

Another day, another comment that shows Wolfson is a giant Douche.  Maybe she will have the integrity to fire him for this.  But I'm guessing not since this is the "fun" part of the primary.  

Plus McCain will be forced to spend money in red states where he wouldn't have a problem with Hillary.  This is a good position for Obama to be in.

When was this survey conducted?  If it was conducted over a rolling period during the last month of Obamamania, it is going to show an Obama bias.  Now Clinton has the momentum - expect these polls to start shifting further her way.

That's fine if you also reject all of the BS electability arguments being front-paged recently about how if Clinton wins the PA primary, she clearly must be the nominee.  All of this armchair primary analysis is idiotic.  How many times do people have to be told that the primary and the GE are two different things before they finally listen?

BS.

mccain will NOT win OR or WA. No Way.

Progressive Blue

that selected BS is BS.

PLEASE tell me how Obama OR Clinton get the needed delegates to be TRULY elected?

Either way, one of them will be "selected" (I would say elected) by the SDs.

Progressive Blue

Prove this.  EVIDENCE?

david

Wow NY goes McCain? You are one crazy dude Lambros, so can you tell if youb logic is true how Hillary wins while Losing the NW, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Mizzou, VA, Maryland, Vermont, Colorado, Lousiana, Minnesota and every other Obama state? Or does crazy BLue-states the HRC won will go red logic only work for her and not for him.  

Just keep sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring reality.