too badly changed by Wright. It doesn't feed into the Obama narrative like Tuzla feeds into the Clinton narrative.

The Presidency shouldn't be the top concern here; Clinton vs. Obama is an electability wash.

What the Dems really need are some more Senators.  Which candidate performs best in those states with crucial Senate races?  

I'd have to give that one to Obama...

It's a no-brainer, and has been a no-brainer for a long time.  HRC does much better than BHO in the purple states -- those are the states that matter come November.

Open blog feud between Armstrong and Markos. Popcorn!

Snark aside, this is an important conversation to have, and it's fascinating to watch the points being lobbed over the fence one by one.

I think you mean:

"States that Clinton solidly leads that are in play with Obama"

instead of your category:

"States that are in play with Clinton that are not with Obama"

damn the truth...has finally been uttered.

yes yes and yes.

The Orange ones are working over time today, but for a sense of what Kos is engendering look at the top rec'd diary on kos now.

Saying Obama must be he nominee because it doesnt matter if he cant win in November.

It's this math that is reason why trying to incinerate Obama is nothing more than political suicide. If you believe your own words that Obama or Hillary would have a tough map against McCain in the fall, then you and the candidate you support are making the situation worse by going on daily grinds against the person who by all measures will be the nominee.

The only way Clinton can win the nomination is to eviscerate Obama totally and completely in every way and to get the support of 70-80% of the remaining super delegates. It would be all out war if Michigan were counted considering Obama wasn't even on the ballot, and that is the only way she can catch him in popular vote.

You follow through with this hari kari solution, and you end with nothing but a nuclear wasteland of a democratic party.

You get Hillary Clinton as the democratic nominee, and you ensure McCain's victory in the fall. Every % at the margins according to you would be critical, and yet she is doing everythign she can to make sure that young voters, black voters, and all the other blocs of voters under 45 (which is really what this election is all about, i.e. it is generational more than affluent or racial or gender) will not turn out IN FORCE.

They will certainly turn out, but not in the numbers required for her to win, at the margins.

That and that alone is the flawed strategy at hand with this scorched earth political policy. It's just sad that you and other Hillary supporters, let alone Hillary herself, cannot see it. Or maybe you do see it and just don't care.

I think it is silly for BO supporters to claim "unassailability" to Obama's chances, but I think we can spend a lot of time getting worked up over polls that are meaningless.

I recognize that HRC's only argument left is electability, but c'mon, do you really believe polls in April (or way before that) reflect how things will shape up once a nominee is chosen?

Either Dem will get a bump in the polls when there is only one left.  Of course, that is unprovable until there is only one left....

You should post this diary everyday until Election Day.

At the end of the primary season, if Obama is still standing with the most pledged delegates, the popular vote, and the most states won, and he DOESN'T get the nomination because the superdelegates decide to over run the will of the people and GIVE Hillary the nomination, you will see one PISSED OFF African-American base.  

Contrary to the media spin right now, the base of the Democrati party IS the African-American base not the white working class voters (which are more swing voters).  A PISSED OFF African-American base means that they will NOT go out and vote for Hillary in the high turn-out numbers she will need to overtake McCain in swing states.  

As a result, she WILL LOSE THE GENERAL ELECTION.

It is as simple as that.  These numbers you have put up would be MUTE if that was to happen.

It's obvious the party's faculty lounge elite would rather lose with yet another fellow wine tracker than deign to dirty their hands with another brush with a populist (and popular) Clinton.

As long as they hold Congress, they could give a crap if they lose the White House or not -- as long as a Clinton isn't in there again to "trash the place" with their foul working class appeal.

that Jerome believes, for even a second, that Massachusetts is at risk if Obama is the candidate.  "But I found this poll saying his lead is only 2% in Massachusetts!"  Give me a break, you know as well as all of us that poll is dead wrong and citing it just proves how disingenuous you've become.

I want a Democrat in the White House next January.
I did not believe that Obama could do than when John Edwards dropped out.
I still do not believe that Obama can do it.

I do know that, despite all her negatives, Hillary Clinton is a known commodity.  I fear that Obama's "Sell By" date may pass soon and then we are stuck with another Democratic debacle.

I do not come to HRC with any great love or joy, but I do know that she is fundamentally progressive and will get the job done.  Grind it out.  And win.

Relying on GE polls as evidence is stupid when our party is divided and the Republicans have a nominee. Either Hillary or Obama will be fighting the same stupid fight with the Republicans by the time all the cards are on the table. You think Hillary doesn't have skeletons in her closet? What makes Hillary so appealing to moderates? She performs worse in open primaries where independents can vote. Just because a huge chunk of her supporters are claiming they will abandon Obama in the GE doesn't mean she's actually more electable.

Clinton and McCain are tied in FL, and Joe Lieberman hasn't even started campaigning for him yet. The oldest population in the country, retired military, Crist at over 2/3 approval, IIRC.

I've never seen an EC map that suggests Clinton can win without FL. Obama can.

Gennifer Flowers has RUINED Clinton's chances as President. And he dodged the draft! America will never stand for that.

Seriously, it's APRIL. Jerome, you are seeing the campaign through your already-strong belief that Obama can't win. It's a silly pair of glasses you have on, and frankly, where I never expected more from, say, Taylor Marsh, I did expect more from you.

Kos is similar, especially lately where you can hear the anger in his writing. But you guys are a coin, and it's far too soon to be flipping out (get it?) over the GE.

"a tough map against McCain"?

Jerome, if in your soul you truly believe McCain will not implode before November fine.
I do not share your belief...

This is not 2004..when our nation supported a WAR President. McCain cannot even get 3/4 in freakin PA.

You can run and hide from McCain if you want...
the rest of us will be all about..

McCain..everyday...every way!

Assuming (and it's easy to do) that Obama ends the primary season with the most delegates.

Most democrats will conclude that the nomination was earned by him. And if Hillary Clinton in effect "steals" the nomination from him, then every single poll you have posted will be useless.  You are citing polls in a vacuum.

The repercussions of Hillary getting the nomination in what will widely be reported as an underhanded way will split the party in half. Any polling done after a bitter convention fight will be extremely unfavorable to Candidate Clinton. You can't win the presidency when half of the party now hates how your candidate got the nomination.

Senator Obama has logic on the side of his arguments and you seem to be underestimating logic Jerome.  Hillary's arguments are fluid and seem to change with each diminishing return.

Your polls mean less than nothing.

Senator Obama can up with the right solution to defeat Senator Clinton.

No doubt the solution to defeat Senator McCain is different, but I see no reason to believe that he will not come up with it.

Clinton could not even beat Obama.

You can point out that Clinton puts different states in play that Obama doesn't. But even taking that at face value, we still see that Obama and Clinton are BOTH electable, not that Clinton is more electable. Considering Clinton's only path to the nomination seems to have to include the argument that she is considerably MORE electable than Obama, how does this make the case?

Additionally, if I recall correctly, you constantly dismiss polls that show Obama competitive in states like MT, ND, NE, KS, TX, SC, NC, CO etc., yet you claim Clinton can realistically be competitive in KY and  MO, etc. (which I don't disagree with) and that McCain can beat Obama in NJ and MA.

Personally, I don't think you should dismiss any state that even one or two polls show to be relatively competitive. But to say that Obama has no chance in these states and not doubt Clinton at all is hypocritical.

The map linked to shows Clinton and McCain tied in New Jersey.

The Obama-McCain map shows them tied in Texas.

I guess that's one of the polls that don't matter. Like the one that shows HRC down ten points in Michigan

Hillary was highest in all the polls in January. Which means she was the most electable. We were so stupid we could of just canceled all the elections and made Hillary the nominee.

I will just forget that previous diary where you lament poor Fl and MI for losing their vote when their contests were disqualified.

This constant demand to change the rules, and metrics is wrong, unfair and unAmerican. There were rules they were followed they are still applicable whether we like them or not. Speaking as an Edwards supporter who wanted Gore to run.

Obama outplayed outmaneuvered Hillary and now has the most delegates by the established rules. Hillary has thrown everything at him and while she has slowed him down she has not stopped his progress.  He will be delegate leader and no amount of begging to supers to postpone endorsements is changing that. It just prolongs the nomination process.

The only thing she can possibly salvage at this point is some dignity

This crap fluctuates all the time.

It's a snapshot. Doesn't mean jack for either candidate.

And let's not forget that McCain has barely been touched yet due to the ongoing Dem battle.

As Mark Murray at FirstRead writes today about the "white male blue-collar" argument stemming from exit polls:

No doubt that exit polls are useful at analyzing particular races. Without them, we wouldn't have known how well Clinton performed in Pennsylvania among white women and the suburbs, which were important keys to her win.

But extrapolating their findings to tell us something about another election -- with different candidates and different voters -- is a dubious exercise.

All we have at this point is the back-and-forth of candidate partisans.

I enjoy your posts, Jerome.  While you now favor Clinton, there seems to be some objectivity in your posts.  There is not the fervor that some at Dkos have for Obama.  Unfortunately, Dkos often is an echo chamber in which people compete at shutting down dissent.  I know what I will read their on the front page: Obama is great, Clinton is bad, Obama won the nomination, Clinton must quit, all must believe in Obama, regardless of his actual policy positions,  etc., etc.

I find many of them to lack credibility, because I know it will be an advocacy piece for Obama no matter what.  Facts do not amtter,, anaytical methodology will be chosen to favor Obama.  the conclusion is set, no matter what the news or facts: Obama already won  and Hillary Clinton must quit.    

They are not reaching out to undecideds, but merely reinforcing the faithful's beliefs.  That is by choice.

If anyone questions their own belief in Obama, they will have the answer to prevent any real critical anaylsis.  It becomes analogous to dittoheads.  It's too much like faith, and not enough like reason.

(At times, MyDD can resemble that in diaries by Clinton supporters also)

That's not to say you're objective.  I see the Clinton bias.  But you at least see that it inherently is indeterminate and difficult, at best, to predict this far out.  Too many at Obama sites (there really is no other word to describe them anymore), are too certain.  They know Obama will transform the entire South.  (I think they are moving away from that)

(Markos provides an analysis, but beofre reading it, I knew it would be that Obama is more electable.)

Now I advocated for Edwards a lot, and I sure was not objective, so I understand.  

But as a neutral reader, I can discount your bais more easily and enjoy your posts.  The others are just boring to me and I can guess what they will say before I read them.

Thanks.

At the end of Clinton v. Obama, the real task of reclaiming the Democratic Party and creating real change will begin again.

They are a sideshow to that project.  Both are centrists.  

I thought these primaries and caucuses were about allotting delegates, not electoral votes.

Of course, there is no real connection that can be made between primary wins and what will happen in the general election.  I mean, you can't take closed Dem primaries and then project from that.

Say what you will about Obama supporters living in a "bubble" but I have yet to hear a Clinton supporter explain how they will overcome the perception by MOST Americans that Hillary is untrustworthy.

That is a very big bubble the Clinton camp is living in.

And they apparently don't think it will be a problem - so what if people think she's a liar?

But these "prognostications" of Jerome's - reads a bit like the horoscope.

Obama's chances in the general election were never as high as many of his supporters believed. On the other hand, they are not as dire as many here believe, either.

I find the numbers at www.fivethirtyeight.com to be very useful: currently, both Clinton and Obama are at their all-time lows matching up against McCain, both around 40%. These will undoubtedly rise, but it's disingenuous to say that either is unelectable.

I do feel that Clinton's path to victory in the primary, however, would hurt her chances in the general more than Obama's path to victory.

I just knew it!  Jerome has a sockpuppet.  ;)

charlie crist may not have ed rendell's political machine, but democrats have no institutional strengths outside of dade (generally), broward, palm beach and hillsborough.

now if hillary had started organizing florida in april, committed the millions it would take to win, maybe, just maybe, she have been able to reverse the dominant trend of democrats polling significantly ahead of republicans statewide (generally by ~20 points) only to lose in november.  if anyone has an explanation for why we should gamble the white house on a demoralized, defeated and virtually destroyed democratic party in florida, i'd love to hear it.  florida is a honey-trap for democrats.  we will never win the white house by relying on florida until the state party begins to heal the wounds inflicted in the 90s and begin to reach out to the critical i-4 corridor (which is has refused to do under the current leadership)...

The election isn't going to be a blow out with either Obama or Clinton, and they both do have their own strengths and weaknesses.  As an Obama supporter, I'm happy to stipulate to that.  Which is what makes posts like this, which cherry pick polls to paint the rosiest picture for Clinton, all the more annoying.  You're not crazy for thinking Clinton is stronger Jerome, but it would be nice if you stopped implying that the counterveiling argument is irrational.  

Your approach here, in replying to a post by kos that discussed specific states where Obama runs stronger, is instructive.  No mention of Obama's greater strength in Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, Michigan (sort of funny), California (again, funny),and Colorado.  Or the fact that he is competative in places like ND, SD, and Nebraska  (they split by Congressional district).  Or that recent polling shows Obama comfortably ahead of Mccain in PA.  Odd.

At the end of the day, the entire party is going to need to work hard for the nominee.  I have no doubt you'll do that, but your Obama fatalism during the primary is wearing thin.  We all understand your preference at this point.  Great.  So can we just get past the "Obama as the nominee = Doom" arguments?  They're officially old.  

This whole "electability" meme is a chickenshit way for us to stand up not for our beliefs, but to cower in fear from the Republican bogeyman.  My message is this: choose your Democratic candidate based not on bullshit polls and electability arguments, but on principle and the issues you care about.  I personally think Obama is more electable, but that is not why I am supporting him.  He reflects the values I care about and I believe in his ability to bring integrity to the White House.  If you support Clinton, disagree with me and tell me why you believe in her.  But spare me the "electability" cowardice.  Isn't "electability" the main reason we, as a party, nominated Kerry.  That turned out well.  We might as well have gone for Lieberman.  I'm not comparing either of our remaining two candidates to Joementum, at all, I'm just saying that when we play to win, rather than standing for our beliefs, we lose.

This is what I'm talkin'http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0425/p01s0 1-uspo.html about....

The diarist has squandered all credibility. He's demonstarted that, like the candidate he shills for, he will say anything and spread any untruth or smear to promote her and denigrate Obama.

Just earlier this year he was admitting that Red State Dems were confidentially admitting to him that a Clinton candidacy would make good coattails.

I'd go search for the link, but I don't give dkos traffic anymore.

It takes an awful lot to make a Democrat lose Massachusetts.  But, Barack Obama just might manage to do it.  Do you know why?

Deval Patrick

My best friend lives just outside Boston, where I went to school and lived for about 8 years.  Massachusetts has already experienced the Obama brand of change before.  They have literally heard the exact, same, speeches.

Like half of the Democratic party, the good people of MA believed in it.  So, they elected the man.  And since then, Massachussets has found him to be ineffective, at times unscrupulous, and ultimately incompetent.

As the old saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

Simply put, Massachusetts will not vote for a second adventure in Axelord advertising.  Those voters learned a painful lesson through first-hand experience.

Looking at polls 6 months before a vote is cast, before any one on one debates, before the press puts the screws on McCain (hopefully) etc etc, and trying to make a judgment today is as silly now as it was in July of 2007.

I have YET to hear an explanation of how it is that a candidate whom roughly 60% of Americans believe is not trustworthy, will win a national election.

Wright is definitely a problem - anyone who says otherwise is being a bit too naive. But even today, post Wright, Obama is seen as honest but numbers similar to McCain.

When people are in the booth, if they have a choice between someone who they consider honest but not the same on 100% of the issues, versus someone they think is dishonest, I think they will most likely choose the person they trust.

Jerome Armstrong has Clinton 284 McCain 244.  Interesting, but there's this website that does Democratic politics that has Clinton 258 McCain 280.  See the map at the upper right of www.mydd.com

A few months ago, I read a diary in which the diarist said (I'm paraphrasing) that with Obama, the upside potential is greater than with Clinton, but the downside risk is greater with Obama also. That stood out with me because I thought that was a fairly astute read on the situation.

I think that we are seeing a reality check regarding Obama's "upside potential." He is not resonating with Reagan Democrats. A lot of traditionally blue states would be in play with Obama as nominee. (He's even in Massachusetts and we're considering nominating this fellow?!?!?)

Obama might win Colorado. That's great progress for the Democratic party. (I am not being sarcastic.) Hillary doesn't even seem to have a shot there.  I read a blog (I think it was Chris Cilizza's) the other day that pointed out that come election day, Obama's chances in VA aren't really as good as they have been trumpeted to be, especially against McCain.

The rest of the map doesn't look particularly good for Obama.

Clinton wins Ohio, Florida, Arkansas, West Virginia, New Mexico and maybe Missouri (and all the other Kerry states) and she's President, with electoral votes to spare. I think she can win PA in the general. Even if she loses New Hampshire, maybe Minnesota (if Pawlenty is GOP VP). Still wins.

When people talk about Obama eating into the Mountain West, they are basically talking about Colorado. I don't think he has a shot anywhere else out there. Where else does he expand the map.

McCain does not reprisent my values, Hillary definately does not reprisent my values.  I'll vote for Obama in Novmember knowing that he reprisents what I believe and if he were to lose, I could sleep at night.

I would not vote in November for Hillary, not out of spite (that's silly) but because her priorites are different than mine and I am sick of voting the lesser of two evils.  McCain - Hillary, one in the same in my humble opinion so if she is the nominee I would care less that she lost in November.      

Talk about 'selective'.

What about Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington and Oregon?

Not to mention Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada.

And I'd love to see a broke McCain spending money in Texas, the Carolinas, and so on...

Well, reporters did ask John McCain today during his trip to New Orleans about Rev. John Hagee's remarks that Hurricane Katrina was punishment for the sins of New Orleans:

"It's nonsense, it's nonsense, it's nonsense, it's nonsense, it's nonsense. I dont have anything additional to say. It's nonsense, it's nonsense, it's nonsense, I don't have anything more to say....it's nonsense. I reject it categorically."

Ah, that is rich. Wright to speak at the National Press Club to blame them for hating America and mcwar's kook is exposed too.

The only sane choice is Clinton.

She wins the electoral votes easily.

Its a no brainer.

Hillary as VP would be 68 before she could become President.  She would basically be running the country doing Obama's work but she might be considered too old by 2016.  I think she should let Obama run and lose and come back in 2012.

"is that they still live in a pre-Wright bubble,"

ah Jerome...you have any problems with the GOP ad in NC? I tried to google news to find if your candidate had condemned it...(((crickets chirping)))

Many of us understand Obama's response to that was probably the finest speech on race in the United States in a long time....

Hey this is your platform..you have worked hard for years and deserve it...

However,; if we are intelligent enough, and savvy enough to have been here for years..maybe, just maybe we are right and you are wrong...

...Damn I miss John Edwards not being a part of this....

that Clinton is "electable". Sure. I've never doubted that or claimed otherwise.

What you haven't proven is that she's more electable.

I totally disagree with this analysis which is not based upon serious data.

There's one person, Poblano, who takes the trouble of doing a serious work on this, and here are his findings:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

As you'll see right now McCain is doing well against
Obama (50,6% of votes on average, and 58.8% estimated chances of winning), and McCain does even better against HRC (51.0% of votes, 61.7% estimated chances of winning).

This is based on all polls available, and Poblano's methodology-which is explained in detail on his site, seems very sound.

So alas the first lesson is that right now McCain is the favorite, and if the fight betweend the two democratic contenders goes on much longer, McCain will win.

The second lesson is that Obama is objectively more electable than HRC.

Besides, polls indicate that neither Wright- not bitter- (nor even finger-) gate have damaged Obama's chances.

Lastly, I am now convinced that HRC is in fact no longer interested in being the democratic candidate this fall. She knows perfectly well she can't make it this time. Even were she nominated by a massive downpour of superdelegate votes reversing Obama's considerable lead in pledged delegates, the dems would never regroup massively behind her. The democratic candidate will need to have the support of his/her opponent's fans and in order to do so he has to win fare and square. So she aims at 2012. And she needs Obama to lose against McCain and is doing everything she can to make him lose. And she uses republican tactics to do so.

Since claiming "white" voters won't vote for Obama in the general seems to be the weapon of choice for Hillary these days, it needs to be pointed out that if the nomination is somehow connived away from Obama, she can kiss the "black" vote goodbye -- and the presidency with it.

I agree with Governor Strickland of the great State of Ohio:

"This is for me a no-brainer," Gov. Strickland said. "If we're going to plan to win in November, we need to choose the candidate that has the greatest strength in the states that are necessary to get us the electoral votes we need." He added: "I hope the superdelegates are paying attention."

Indeed sir,

Indeed.

Jerome, thanks for these posts. I've been trying hard to articulate these kinds of arguments on my blog for my friends at home and fellow Democrats at school (professors too, for that matter--they are all about Clinton needing to quit) for a couple of weeks, and it hasn't been working.

Necessary insight.

And can someone please talk about how Hillary got the religious vote in PA? I thought Obama was the religious one.

I like how you (Jerome) criticize Obama supporters for living in the past, specifically Feb., and yet you still insist on calling him an "untested gamble" in order to dismiss his candidacy wholesale from consideration.

Really? I think not, he's pretty tested, and his numbers against Clinton have either stayed where they were or gone up since Wright. His numbers against McCain have descended at about the same rate as Clintons.

The only way that argument (roll of the dice) still works is if you think Hillary Clinton is immune from gaffes due to her alleged experience, which is as silly as thinking Obama has no electability issues.

All those polls are against the McCain of today, the McCain who doesn't pander to the "Reagan democrats", the McCain who doesn't propose a watered down fake Health care plan that the MSN will comment and compare to ours the way they commented the latest movie from Michael Moor.

some cool plots:

Wisconson

http://www.pollster.com/08-WI-Pres-GE-Mv C.php

http://www.pollster.com/08-WI-Pres-GE-Mv O.php

Minnesota

http://www.pollster.com/08-MN-Pres-GE-Mv C.php

http://www.pollster.com/08-MN-Pres-GE-Mv O.php

Oregon

http://www.pollster.com/08-OR-Pres-GE-Mv C.php

http://www.pollster.com/08-OR-Pres-GE-Mv O.php

Washington

http://www.pollster.com/08-WA-Pres-GE-Mv C.php

http://www.pollster.com/08-WA-Pres-GE-Mv O.php

Where's Minnesota?  Last I saw Obama wins it and Hillary loses it.

These polls don't make much sense now anyway.  Once we determine a nominee, whoever it is will get a nice bounce.

Score one for Jerome over the Dark Lord Kos!

"They are stuck in February and early March"

We will see what May brings eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn8tixOYi Z0

"Where's Minnesota?  Last I saw Obama wins it and Hillary loses it."

Hillary and her helpers have to cherry pick the numbers to make them work in her favor.

"Score one for Jerome over the Dark Lord Kos!"

That's probably what this really is all about, a petty rivalry between two bloggers who have gotten too big for their britches.

Obama 19.4% probability of winning, with an average of 247 electoral votes.

Clinton 16.1% probability of winning, with an average of 254 EV.

Carolina on my mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG8uf349S 2k

but there is no racism in NC...Wright?..I mean right..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHMbX3PVs UE

Still waiting for any of the hosts here to step up on the GOP ad  but then again there is that
"they still live in a pre-Wright bubble"

Couldn't stand that Markos called you on the caucus states, huh? It's good that you're returning the favor of defending Clinton's electability since you made him do the same for Obama's earlier this year. ;)

Does this stuff ever get old?  I think Wright is a problem, though I am less offended than some, but I have yet see a new argument developed on either side in several weeks.

Actually I am offended by religion and God in general, so I usually just keep my mouth shut since 92% of the population thinks I am some kind baby-eating monster.

   you are simply ignoring the obvious with this analysis.

  Obama is up in CO, while Clinton is down (cancels out Arkansas).

  He's in a dead heat in NC against McCain (while Clinton is down by double digits)

  Obama is winning CA by a LARGER margin than Clinton (which kills the ridiculous notion that only Clinton can win the big states)

   Obama is up by 8 in IA, while Clinton is  up by 1.

   Talk about FL all you want...it doesn't change the situation. Clinton has far more obstacles to 270 electoral votes.

   That and her obvious disdain for red America has already led most of us to conclude she'll simply write off most of those states anyway.

   NC, CO, MO, none of those will be in the Clinton game plan come October unless she's already winning there.

   Not a strategy for victory.

I find it most interesting that so many Kos types, including the eponymous one himself, are now coming over here to find the quasi-reasoned debate that is so glaringly absent from the hate site Daily Kos has become.

Wait, wasnt Clinton leading in the polls big time early in the primary? How the hell can someone talk about electability with any authority when it is unknown what effect the inevitable competition effect with have on McCain once the primary is over. Right now McCain is getting a free ride.

I think the fact that major bloggers are still worried about electability misses a bigger point. IS OUR PARTY SO PATHETIC THAT WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT ELECTABILITY SO MUCH IN A YEAR THAT SHOULD BE A SLAM DUNK ELECTION??? If we worry so much about electability this year, will there ever be a time where we have to worry less about electability and be a slave to the unpredictable factor as to what is electable? Are we so insecure about our principles that we feel that the majority of Americans won't buy it on that alone even after 8 years of the worst party rule in history?

they still live in a pre-Wright bubble, in their estimation of an Obama GE candidacy

Well said!

The fact that we're even having this conversation is fascinating to me.  This was never supposed to be this close.

Jerome,

You have made reference to www.electoral-vote.com but the site today doesn't jive with your claims about which states fall in Clinton or Obama's column. However, your conclusion is still sound.

Here is a breakdown as of today:
Arkansas - You say that Clinton leads? She and Obama trail McCain by greater than 5%. It's true that she does better by not losing by as much but a win it is not. -1 for Clinton.

New Jersey - Now in play for Obama and Clinton. Obama actuall 1 point better than Clinton here now. -1 for Clinton.

The rest of what you said still stands:
MO, KY, OH, WV, MA, FL - These six are the only current states where Clinton leads McCain but Obama trails him. That's worth 83 votes.

Now for the other side of the coin.
States where Obama leads but Clinton loses or ties:
CO, IA, MI, WI. That's 43 votes. I will note that Obama is tied in NC with McCain while Clinton loses badly so this could swing. However, the same holds true for WI in the other direction. Clinton is tied with McCain and could knock this one out of Obama's column.

So Clinton wins handily in the "split" states and is thus CURRENTLY (polls change!) has the better shot.

284 Clinton vs. 264 Obama

Both win but Obama only by a nose! However, we shouldn't discount the boost that will come from securing the nomination. That may make the whole issue moot.

I still believe the gaps are exaggerated, that everything tends to drift back to the beginning, and two Democrats of similar caliber would not fare 5-15% differently in November, in the same states versus the same Republican. Maybe a few points, here and there.

Here are numbers that can't seriously be denied or debated: It's a 21% liberal, 32% conservative nation. Our candidate runs smack into that reality in every general election, and it's prominent in the swing states, which are swing states because they virtually mirror that 21%-32% breakdown.

IMO it's flailing nonsense to assert Obama as the more liberal candidate -- or, at best, as a lesser known quantity who easily will be painted as far left -- can pull states with known and long standing partisan tendencies that are even more conservative than the nation as a whole. I've given those digits before, albeit not lately, the percentage of self-described liberals and conservatives in each state, and how that directly impacts the vote.

Funny how Obama math is shouted in terms of delegate relationship to Hillary, but conveniently ignored in terms of Obama trying to win states with 35% or higher self-described conservatives. Bush won every single one of them in '00 and '04. Gore/Kerry won everything with at least 24% self-described liberals.

If we give up on Florida, which has less than 35% conservatives (20-34 ratio, according to '04 exit poll), then our game plan is a strange reliance on  states even further afield from our typical grasp.

Consider some of the other states, in the Obama playbook:

* Colorado: 35% conservatives in '04
* Nevada: 18% liberals in '04, 37% conservatives in the '06 exit poll

Hillary's husband won states outside the recent liberal/conservative tendency. She has less opportunity there, but certainly more than Obama.

I keep old GOP commercials and refer to them occasionally, during the hyper periods like this, in which we thrill to pretend it's been a nasty and divisive campaign. Obama has already said plenty to define himself in the fall, combined with association to Wright.

I suggest we win Ohio.