with 96% in, Obama leads Hillary 49%-46%.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elect ions/2008/by_state/NE_Page_0513.html?SIT E=NEOMAELN&SECTION=POLITICS

with 96% in, Obama leads Hillary 49%-46%.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elect ions/2008/by_state/NE_Page_0513.html?SIT E=NEOMAELN&SECTION=POLITICS

In a beauty contest?  Well, if you are going to bring that out, I should bring out the CA polling that says that Obama would win in a landslide against Hillary if the contest were held over again.

Cool! So can we call my state, Indiana, a tie, too?

... ahh hell never mind.

Ohio is a red state - if it's competitive, that's a good thing.

You need the Gore states, plus about 9 more.  Ohio and Florida each have about 25 a piece - in the past, Democratic candidates have aimed at those two because they were the easiest to win, not because the needed them.  Flip Colorado and you don't need Ohio.  Same goes for Virginia, which, like Ohio and Florida, is another electoral sledgehammer.

The turnout did not yield much of a popular vote margin - not that popular vote matters.

People who know that Obama will win in 3 of the 4 States remaining and probably with impressive margins aren't amazed at all.

Obama offers a different set of competitive states, while contesting many of the 90's battlegrounds.

Colorado, yes. Virginia. North Carolina at a stretch. Even Texas, with a little effort. He's stronger in Michigan than Clinton, and is favored over McCain in Pennsylvania. Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada all favor Obama over McCain, but McCain over Clinton.

Clinton does perform better in Ohio and Florida, but at the expense of much of the west and midwest.

I prefer the Obama approach because it expands the playing field, giving us better opportunities to flex our financial and enthusiasm advantage over the Republicans, while providing more coattails for downticket races. It also grows our party where we have the most potential: the west and midwest.

This is not to say that Clinton's would-be path is a bad one; Like Obama, she would probably win, but she would do it the same way Bill did - in a way that left other Democrats out in the cold and left us with a spineless shell of a party after the Clintons left office.

As goes West Virginia, so goes the nation.

As a fellow resident of GA, I completely disagree. GA is probably behind a long list of states Obama will make competitive, but GA is certainly not McCain country.

First of all, Georgia not only has a large black population but also a more youthful population. A large increase in turnout in both of these groups, Obama's strongest, will put a big dent in the margin. Additionally, McCain is not well liked here. Huckabee, sure, but the conservatives here are some of the more likely to stay home.

Also, if you look at the primary map, Obama did very well in central and south Georgia. Unlike in states like MO and MS, where Obama performed badly in rural areas but made up for it in the urban centers, Obama actually has support in rural areas outside of the North Georgia Appalachian area.

Throw in a bit of support going to Barr, and you may have a single digit margin.

Now, I think its pretty unlikely that Obama takes Georgia unless he manages to win the nationwide popular vote  by like 10 points (thus a landslide of sorts), but there's no reason to count it out completely.

And if Obama can narrow Kerry's margin in GA, I have no doubt he can win in places like North and South Carolina.

GA is safe Republican.

No Dem has ever won without winning Missouri even before the WV trend.

The whole WV thing is also silly because it goes so late in the season usually everyone has dropped out except for the presumptive nominee. So of course that person wins the primary.

No Democrat has won the White House since 1912 without winning Minnesota.

Two can play this game, friend.  Get over it.

I have to hand it to her Hillary does well in Appalachia.

One of the reasons the Clintons don't want to give up is that Bill will no longer be considered the leader of the party. He and his folks, who have lost power in the DNC, will lose more.  

I do find it a bit hypocritical when Clinton wines about how every vote should count ie; Fla/mich. Then in the very same breath demand that the super delegates ignore and over rule the voters votes and their duly elected delegates and install Clinton as the party's candidate. Amazing isn't it.

whether we like it or not, people are still voting for her. I think it's hard for Obama supporters to really come to terms with the reality that other Democrats support her.

That's fine...it may mean this goes longer and that's fine, but when all the primaries are over, and whatever happens to Florida and Michigan happens and it's up to the superdelegates and they decide on a nominee, then that's where the decision has to be made.

If Clinton campaigns until the convention, attempting to change the minds of the superdelegates up until Denver, it won't help her and it won't help Obama. We have to get behind a nominee and we have to do it before Denver.

I love Obama supporter's sense of history. Hart Mondale? Kennedy Carter? McGovern Muskie?

Most contested Democratic primaries end in tough procedural fights. So not only has there been a time, but this is what usually happens. And those primaries weren't as close as this one is.

As for the party, Clinton has won more votes of registered Democrats. She has a huge following. Democratic politicians who decide "it's safe to go against the Clintons" will have a whole bunch of constituents to answer to. Especially from the party's growing majority, women and Hispanics. So many Obama supporters, and apparently Obama himself, forget that this is not about Obama or Hillary, it is about the voters.

It's ok they can pat themselves on the back, her biggest win in a long time, and she ends up losing ground.   She will need bigger margins in upcomming states to close the delegate gap.

It was a nice win, but the only number where Obama is not way ahead still includes FL & MI, excludes unreported +Obama state estimates, and excludes the uncommitted MI vote. So it's not even close to legit.

Actually, that's the most legitimate way possible because it is the exact way that the popular vote is always counted -- by tallying up the official votes reported by every state election body.  When people discussed whether Bush or Gore won the popular vote, they didn't include things like exit polls, estimates, how much effort candidates put into particular states, etc.  They just added up all the state tallies.  And when you add up all the officially reported state tallies, Hillary Clinton will definitely be up in popular vote by the end of this campaign.  

> getting pretty tired of the "He is the
> presumptive nominee and yet he lost!" theme.

That kind of thing is bound to happen when you label one candidate the "presumptive" winner before the contest is over. The same thing happened to Clinton early on when she was the "inevitable" winner. As soon as she lost in Iowa, she looked much weaker than she really was, because her standing had been inflated (mostly by the press, but her campaign egged them on).

Now it is happening to Obama. He should have kept his powder dry and quietly worked on swaying SDs one at a time - a strategy that has been working for him. Instead, he announced his intention to crown himself victorious on the 20th, thinking he could start a stampede of SDs. Now losing WV by 40% damages him much more than it would have.

??

Awesome analogy.

And, yeah, I'm an Obama supporter.

just did :)

By the way, when you go to the Obama website the first thing you see is an area where you can donate to the Red Cross for relief efforts in Asia.  I assume there is something like that on Hillary's site, but just a suggestion, when you donate to whichever candidate you do, maybe throw some money to one of the relief agencies.  I had gone to donate to Obama today and ended up sending the amount instead to the Red Cross but certainly one can split and do both.

Unfortunately the Republicans have also nominated their strongest candidate in a GE - John McCain.  So reading too much into results elsewhere is not too helpful.

And a lot of independents have no problem with the idea of giving Congress to one party and the presidency to another.  Would be nice if Obama could win but I still don't see it happening.

Indeed.  And they tried hard to bring Childers down by linking him to Obama.  Ads don't get much more negative than this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv4qFO2eE JY&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/

But it didn't work.  Heck, it may have backfired---Davis was only 3 points behind Childers last time, this time it was 8.  8!  In a district that Bush got 62% in!

If we can have a united party in November, I think we win.  Let's talk about how we do that.  

It is not an awful situation for the 2 leading primary vote-getters in the history of the Democratic party to work together to bring a Democrat back to the White House!

Clinton residual problems from past scandals?  About as consequential as the Ayres stuff.  Bring it on!

I'm curious mady. If Obama wins and asks Clinton to be his VP will you be angry at him? disappointed? or will you accept that he has his reasons and let it be?

Because while I still want Clinton for president, I think she offers more as a VP candidate than absolutely anyone else Obama could pick.

1) Plugs most or all his demographic weaknesses.

2. Plugs most or all his geographic weaknesses.
   
3. Would be able to carry the attack to the opposition all by herself, freeing him to do his unifier schtick.
   
4. Would crush any Republican VP candidate in a debate.
   
5. Is clearly qualified to be President - no Dan Quayle comparisons or "You're no Jack Kennedy" zingers.
   
6. 100% name recognition.

> she would be far more effective as leader of the Senate.

I have seen this idea come up many times, but nobody who proposes it ever explains how she is going to be elected Majority Leader. Harry Reid does not seem disposed to give it up for her, and many of the power players in the Senate are lined up against her: Obama, Reid, Kennedy, Dorgan, Durbin, Kerry, Leahey, Byrd. Schumer is about the only prominent Senator who would definately back her for Leader.