"One thing that's beginning to be clear, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, is that a lot of states are going to be in play against McCain, going both ways."

Please enlighten us with links to evidence showing a large number of Kerry 2004 states being competitive for McCain.  Both ways?

2008 is a one-way street:  the Dems take the White House.  The question is which Dem?  And we have chosen.  Get on board, man.

These polls are worthless right now and you know it. Lets discuss this after we pick a nominee. This attempt to suggest Obama could loose is pretty transparent.

Did you just refer to WV and Kentucky as "traditional battleground states?" Are you for real? I mean come on now Jerome, you act like the road to the White House only goes through two of the most racist states.

Also, um according to Gallup, Obama garners just amount the same percentage as Hillary in terms of Latinos. If I recall correctly she gets like 67% and he gets around 63% of the Latino vote.

According to the latest Gallup poll (polls can be wrong in methodology and predictions) 62% of Democrats think Senator Obama gives the party the best chance of winning.  

According to the latest Gallup poll (polls can be wrong in methodology and predictions) 62% of Democrats think Senator Obama gives the party the best chance of winning.  

Serious question.

Obama will do fine. He'll bounce up in the GE polls as soon as Dems consolidate, which should happen when Clinton endorses him.

I sure hope she'll stop with the nonsense about Bill not getting it until June, which was thoroughly debunked by the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/us/pol itics/27checkpoint.html?ref=politics
William Bradley, a California political strategist-turned-writer, said he had personally delivered a message to the Clinton campaign before the California primary that Mr. Brown "would run no TV ads in the California primary and would pull back from the sharp attacks," in recognition of Mr. Clinton's strength.

And party members reported an effort by Clinton allies and ranking party officials to pressure uncommitted superdelegates to line up behind Mr. Clinton, a strategy he decried this past weekend when he accused "them" of bullying superdelegates early to choose sides between Mr. Obama and his wife.

It's difficult for Obama to win in these regions - As soon as he starts gaining ground, McCain will launch his "I'm a locale ads" - I can't see him losing Nevada. Obama might win NM and colarado.

Puerto Ricans make up a strong electoral bloc in Florida?

That's news to me - my impression has always been that Cubans are the dominant Hispanic population in Florida. (And Obama's been making some interesting inroads with Miami's Cuban population lately.)

I can think of a few reasons why Clinton's numbers are better than Obama's numbers - namely, the same reasons why Obama's numbers were higher a while back.

Obama's been facing the brunt of GOP attacks for a while now, and Clinton has been campaigning hard against him. Clinton certainly hasn't gotten a full pass, but there's been much less attention on her. We haven't heard anything about "suspicious" associates of the Clintons as we have with Obama, and the GOP has focused on attacking Obama in the last two special elections.

Meanwhile, Obama supporters are being 'generous' in victory, showing far lower defection numbers than Clinton supporters. The reason is simple: Obama supporters know they won;t have to follow through on their pledge, and therefore it seems much easier to play nice with the candidate whose supporters they need going forward. As I recall, Obama tended to have higher defection numbers before Super Tuesday.

I think Florida is probably a reach this year. Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico and New Hampshire are all better prospects.

Also, can haz rec/rate abilities? I've gotten into some disagreements with you, but I considered them disagreements, not a personal thing.

Perhaps because neither Obama or McCain have laid a finger on her for the past month. McCain because - why waste the ammo? and Obama because - why alienate her base?

Meanwhile McCain, and more importantly Clinton, have been focusing their fire on Obama. Obama is still holding strong among independents, where his initial GE strength you're referencing came from, but his polling among Democrats, Clinton Democrats, has declined as Hillary encourages them to feel hard done by and some how slighted by Obama because he is winning.

It's pretty clear this is Hillary's strategy - call into question Obama's electability by dragging it down herself. Smart, but it won't be successful - at least in the primary. It has a chance of being successful at harming his chances in the GE, unless Hillary works like stink to rectify it.

(And I realise you're going to say 'you can't blame Hillary for Obama losing the GE'. Well, I can if that was Hillary's game plan all along, and I feel it's obvious that it is.)

The big question is whether Clinton would have this high level of GE support if the Republican machine had been going after her since February as hard as they have Obama.

You observed that back in February, her GE numbers were no better than Obamas. Remember in the early debates how Clinton was used by the the GOP candidates as their generic opponent? "We need to nominate someone who can beat liberal Hillary Clinton in the fall!" was the general line coming from Romney, McCain, Giuliani, etc.

Since Obama became the frontrunner, he has become the conservative boogeyman: he's the most liberal senator who doesn't salute the flag, blah blah blah. With conservatives uniting against Obama, it is natural that Clinton would appear more popular.

It's as if the continued, doomed Clinton campaign against Obama doesn't exist.  Of course Obama is still weak in some areas -- he has an active democratic primary campaign against him as well as the Republicans.  

I think your analysis really just points to the need to get a nominee as quickly as possible after June 4, and for all efforts then to be focused on coalescing around the nominee.  We have to consolidate our effort and have the full support of all democrats behind the party's nominee.  You certainly are correct that this thing is far from over.  Though I don't think Hillary (or anybody) is going to put Kentucky in play for the Democrats, and West Virginia has trended Republican in recent cycles, we need to fully support the nominee once he secures the necessary number of delegates.  

And Clinton has trouble in some states that Obama doesn't.  America is a bigoted country.  Time to step up to the plat and face them down.

And finally . . . polls at this point mean absolutely D I C K.

My strong suspicion is that we're going to see one or more darkhorse, 3 EV traditionally GOP states likewise come into play.

Personally, I'm looking at Alaska... McCain isn't well-liked at in AK (he finished a distant 4th in AK).  While his ANWAR stance is pretty similar to Obama - the fact of the matter is that GOP base in AK is the one McCain needs to soothe... and they just don't like him.

Add downticket drags (Stevens and Young both with ethical issues and hardly popular any more in the state), a history of minor party support, and I see an opening in AK.

Even if, pragmatically, we have to acknowledge that racist, ignorant over 60 people in the Ozarks (i.e. HillaryBillies) won't vote for Obama -- it is still not a legitimate reason to oppose his nomination.

I'd rather lose the damn election than pander to them.

But, I am not worried. I am confident Obama will win without their votes. And will, therefiore, marginalize them appropriately.

And please do not pretend that Kentucky is a swing state -- or has been one recently. People here aren't idiots.

Once, Kentucky was a swing state.  Like other parts of the south, it had a tradition of voting for Democrats that was a holdover from the pre-Nixon days.  The national parties changed, and in some cases swapped, what they stand for, but many southern voters were slow to switch their voting habits accordingly.  Slowly, each one of these states was converted to voting solidly for Republicans for federal office, though in many cases they maintained a strong state Democratic party.

In Appalachia, particularly WV and KY, the state Democratic parties were stronger than in the deep south, and the change in federal voting that had already happened in the deep south was slow to come.  But it did.

In Kentucky, that shift is over a decade old, and well established.  In 2004, Bush beat Kerry in Kentucky by 20 points.  Kentucky is a red state.  Nobody we might have nominated this year would've had a chance of winning it.

West Virginia has also been making that shift, but it's about ten years behind Kentucky.  It's like the mirror image of New Hampshire, which has been late in following the rest of its region to becoming a blue state.  But I think this year is the year both of those states make that transition clear: NH is blue, WV is red.  Nobody we might have nominated would've won WV this year; all of our serious contenders for the nomination would've won NH.

Pretty good analysis, but I agree with the other posters who say it's WAAAAY too early to do much more than speculate here.  We'mm be able to make better judgments about the landscape after things shake out once HRC concedes.

As for the "oddity" of the strength of HRC: it seems pretty clear to me (if unprovable) that if the situation were reversed, and she had been taking hits from both BHO and McCain for the last two months, her numbers would look quite a bit different.

But like I said, it's still about a month too early, but I look forward to your analyses in July and going forward.

Jerome,

Thanks for continuously pointing out our future hurdles. I agree with you, Hillary (somehow) is doing better in the GE polls. But, we're stuck with Obama. Seems far too many people think this election will be won handily, and I don't see the cause for that optimism. It seems is blasphemous to even point out an Obama flaw.

I am glad Obama is working the SW. I feel the future of our party rests more in NM and NV than KY or WV on the national level. To those who doubt Clinton could win those states, her husband did. That said, I'd rather people vote for our party than just for "the Clintons". That strategy doesn't work as we found out in 1994.

meaningful John Kerry would be President.

"As someone that just wants Dem to win the presidency, Clinton wasn't my first choice, but her chances look pretty good now."

I put her chances at winning the presidency well under 5%.  Mainly because I think she has about a 5% chance of being the nominee.  Even if she makes it to the general, I can't see her enjoying much support among African American voters.  Particularly if she "wins" by taking it to the convention.

The question will be whether those voters don't vote for her in the same numbers they have supported democratic candidates in the past or if they actively go out and vote for McCain.  If it is the first, several states some think are sure things for Clinton (e.g. Ohio) will be close.  If African-Americans go out and vote for McCain she will lose in a landslide.

Hillary has as much chance winning Kentucky as believing in the tooth fairy.  LOL.

Putting aside your disappointment for a second, Jerome...

Neither candidate would face a slam sunk against McCain in November. The reason why is simple--the RNC is going "all-in" with McCain... He's their best shot at a win of any sort at the local, state or federal level.  The RNC has basically told congressional and senate republicans that they are completely on their own.  They will focus on the presidency and the presidency only.

In effect, they are copying the Bill Clinton strategy of the 90's... congress seemed hopelessly lost, so focus on the presidency only and hope that the congresscritters can somehow hold onto things on their own...

So, the republicans will be completely and totally concentrating ALL their forces in winning the presidency and the presidency alone.  It's their best shot at the moment.  Unfortunately for us, they nominated a guy that does better than his brand.  But, either of our candidates will be facing a complete and full frontal assault by the entire right wing noise machine.

So, it will definitely not be easy or fun at all!

"Anyone who thinks its a slam-dunk either way isn't paying attention."

No slam dunk?
How true. Obama will have to wait until McCain dunks his Bush3 candidacy into his donuts before Obama slams him in the general.

Don't worry too much about May polls now, we'll be spinning ribbons around McCain's maypole by November.

This is going to be a good fight, one to look forward to. No need to face it with trepidation. America will choose Democratic this time.

If Obama does win the electoral college in November,
it's going to be razor thin.

With each passing week, Hillary Clinton is doing better in the general election match-up,
even as her chances to get the nomination evaporate.

Leave it to the Dems to pick the weakest candidate.
We seem to prefer victories of the moral nature.

as a latina, i can say mccain will win the majority of the latino vote.  obama has no legislative record with community.  at the grassroots level there is also tremendous tension between black leaders and latinos voters.  as a whole, black leaders have been terrible to latinos and there is genuine distrust.  obama needed to have worked a long time ago to heal that  

richardson means nothing to latinos voters.  i'm from CA and no one in my family even knows who he is.  
unfortunately, obama is not going to do well with latinos.  and i sincerely believe he is going to lose the southwest because of it.  i even think CA in in play.  my entire family voted for clinton and they are absolutely shut down to obama.

Will this discussion still be taking place after 6/3?

Can anyone please point to where SD's give a rat's ass about these GE polls?
How about the guy who switched from Clinton to Obama last week..You know the Co-Chair of her National Hispanic Council?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/ story/38408.html

Look at the Rasmussen tracking poll for today.  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/daily_presidential_tra cking_poll It has McCain beating Obama by 3.  "Twenty-four percent (24%) of White Democrats nationwide currently say they'll vote for the Republican candidate, John McCain."  Clinton is up by 4 over McCain.  http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/general_election_match_up_ history Obama and Clinton have had the same favorability ratings for two of the last three days.  http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/overall_favorable_ratings_ for_presidential_candidates   But looking at the details, one sees that Obama's "very unfavorable" ratings are two points worse than Clinton's.

The West Virginians and Kentuckians are unlikely to back Obama.  Since 1964, KY has always been on the winning side.

Well, let the left side of the party kill itself.

Aside from nominate Clinton, what do you suggest we do to win these states?  

I continue to wonder what pragmatic Clinton supporters really believe both hers and Obamas true support levels are.  Right now, I think most people believe the polling results are clouded by three factors that are not likely to last through the GE:

1)  Hillary is not absorbing any negative attacks from McCain or Obama while she is having a field day attacking McCain and the primary process (she is not attacking Barack's qualifications these days).

2)  Very few Obama supporters are not willing to support Hillary, while a lot of Hillary supporters are suggesting they won't vote for Obama.  While some of these are true GE feelings, most people suspect that some of these opinions will change come GE time.  

I suggest, if Barack wins the nomination, some of these Hillary supporters currently unwilling to support Barack will change their minds.  

More importantly from Hillary's GE perspective, if she were to win the nomination through Super Delegates, she would take a HUGE hit in the polls from Obama supporters.

By the way, even though I am an Obama supporter, I think Hillary/Obama is the best ticket we have to win the GE.  Why?  Because Hillary does appear to be polling strongly, even if her current numbers overstate her appeal.  And with Obama on he ticket, she would not lose too many of his supporters.  Finally, Obama as Hillary's VP allows message preservation far more than Hillary as Obama's VP.

One big problem is that he would never accept this, nor should he.  He is the winner of the pledged delegates (no matter how MI/FL are counted), and his polling results certainly show him viable enough.  Results are mixed, but he is generally winning.

That is my opinion, but I am interested in your opinion (Jerome, Todd, and any Hillary supporter willing to address the topics I raise calmly).  I hope you respond.

The difference in McCain versus Obama's rhetoric on voters in the West, and Hispanic voters specifically, is striking. From the article:

"I believe as a Western senator I understand the issues, the challenges of the future for these ... states, whether it be land, water, Native American issues, preservation, environmental issues," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press.

He said his positions on a number of issues -- "pro-life, pro-military, pro-small business" and immigration -- "will allow me to receive the consideration of the Hispanic voter."

Obama told reporters he was "absolutely confident" that he would do well in the West because the voters are "independent minded and are gonna look at whether or not over the last eight years the country is better off under Republican rule and I think they are going to conclude they are not."

McCain talks issues, Obama talks partisanship. The article ends talking about Obama using a media and endorsement strategy to win over Hispanics. Obama's problem with Hispanics against Hillary is the same as his problem with other working class voters, he does not connect on their issues. I don't see how recording his ads in Spanish is going to help with that.

to publish, Jerome?

At least this is couched in the "I am so worried about this loser Obama representing my party" tones that you think will appeal to cognitively-challenged SDs, as opposed to your pets' "I am voting for McCain and here's what the GOP can do to beat him" tones.

Is this the "honest Clinton supporter showing Unity" message?  "I'm all for the loser, but mark my words he will lose?"

What the heck are you going to have to talk about after this civil war - er - "primary" is over?

I'm sorry if the current tenor of MyDD has made me overly sensitive.  I'm sorry if trying to push Unity from the Obama camp gives me too many negative comparisons (or too few positive) from Clinton supporters to take this seriously.  But I can't read these concern-diaries with a straight face.

This diary (Gray, get read on the TR for me!), is more disengenuous crap.

-chris

You are right, Jerome.  Let's just scrap the whole primary process and make Clinton the nominee based on cherry picked polls that are  five months out from the election date.

Obama is the nominee.  Why don't we focus on trying to beat McCain rather than wasting our energies on something that's not going to happen.

hey, i agree, that the black/brown divide should heal.  but i'm not wrong.  this is not high analysis, but just observations from my community.  obamas big selling point, his bio, is lost on latinos.  we've had a tougher journey and are more exotic than him.  also, rev. wright was very damaging.  latinos are working hard to become americans and extremely patriotic when they do.  the wright episode played much worse with our community than even the white-american voter.  even in the primary, obama did not win over the latinos in his district. that should tell you something.  watch, (sadly), even cali is in play.

Obama seems to be turning in to Dan Quayle.  LOL.  http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/27/ baracks-sixth-sense/#comment-283461

This is priceless and well worth watching the You Tube video.

Obama swing state map:

Ohio: McCain
Florida: McCain
Pennsylvania: Tossup
Michigan: Tossup
Wisconsin: Tossup
Iowa: Obama
Colorado: Tossup
Nevada: Tossup
New Mexico: Tossup
New Hampshire: McCain
Kentucky: McCain
West Virginia: McCain
Arkansas: McCain
Missouri: McCain
Virginia: Tossup
North Carolina: McCain
Nebraska Congressional Districts: Tossup
Maine GOP Leaning Congressional District: Tossup

Obama's problem with rural whites is not necessarily his fault, it's simply reality.  We should just acknowledge it and attempt to make up the losses elsewhere.

That's my nit-pick.  I think the battleground in Missouri will be the exurbs.  Obama can overcome the Ozarks & Springfield in St. Louis & Kansas City but he can't get killed in the Ozarks, Springfield AND places like St. Charles.  Oh, and don't be quick to call Missouri next November.

I voted for Clinton and can admit this is not an honest statement.  If you look at all the polls, it is obvious that they are equally competitive.  People need to stop cherry picking polls.  It is really rather silly.

You buried the lede:

"Polls released last week by Rasmussen Reports found Obama beating McCain in Colorado, 48 percent to 42 percent, and in New Mexico, 50 percent to 41 percent."

GREAT news for Obama!

Good analysis Jerome. As one who has long supported Obama and both anticipated and looked forward to his unorthodox electoral map, I am not worried about the "traditional Democratic strongholds" in Appalachia. Perhaps this time they will not be in the forefront of Democratic realignment, they will come around once they see an Obama candidacy in action.

There is no doubting that Obama will have a lot of trouble wining Kentucky and West Virginia, but let's not forget that even though he lost those states big time, he STILL managed to get more votes that McCain.

Sure the Republican primaries weren't nearly as important by the time the Democrats voted, but still.

If Obama didn't open up Western states, the two biggies being NM and CO than KY and WV would be an issue.

But they cancel each other out, and actually NM and CO offer up more electoral votes (14 vs. 13).

Plus, as you noted, there is also NM (5).  Additionally, we can compete in VA, NC, SC, MT, ND a few districts in NE and MO.

Will he win all those states, perhaps not, but it puts us in a much better position than 2004 when the focus was on just one state (OH).

It seems like certain people are actually hoping that Obama has difficulty just so they can say, "I told you so."  That's a scary thought.  We should all be hoping that either candidate will be succesful in the general.

I like the change of tone Jerome, Very refreshing. Any perceived Deficiency in Obamas path to the WH can be remedied by us Democrats pulling together! United we stand....

I don't think that either McCain or Obama are a slam dunk when you look at the map. However, I think when you look at the trajectory of the campaign it is clear that Obama gets stronger the more he campaigns in an area and that the same is not necessarily true for McCain. It is also important to consider the fundraising differences between the two. Obama is not going to enter into a public financing pact with McCain because a.) he can't be trusted and b.) we can outraise him 3:1 or more.

Now on to the subject of new terrain for the Democratic party. I, for one, think this is a good thing. We have not been winning Presidential elections on the terrain we were on, and '92 and '96 were both affected by a third party candidate (is it possible that Bob Barr will play that role this time?... that is a question for another day; but it is certainly a possibility.)

So I say bring on New Terrain. Lets fight for Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. Lets fight for Virginia. Lets even fight for North Carolina and Georgia (particularly Georgia, what with the Bob Barr scenario*)

* I was a person who over the course of the campaign has argued many times with Ga6thdem that we could not win Georgia so I was not worried about their view of the race. Now seems like a good time to apologize for that being as I think I was wrong and I am big enough to say so.

Clinton always brags about her "baggage" that's been rifled through many a times.  Well neither she nor her husband have run a national GE campaign in 12 years, and they've accumulated tons of baggage since that Obama/Edwards/etc. have not touched in ads or on the stump (think about Pardongate alone).  Is anyone deluded enough argue that Obama went hard-negative against Clinton in the general?

It is naive and ridiculous to think that Republicans will not hit Clinton hard on every single issue that the Edwards and Obama campaigns etc. were unwilling to bring up.  In redefining the Clintons as part of the corrupt culture of Washington, McCain would attempt to strip Clinton of her populist self-rebranding and use his pseudo-maverick status as some kind of heroic break from partisan politics.  McCain would try to bring Clinton down to his level and pin all of the Clinton messes to a candidate with towering negatives to begin with.

She's polling better in some states and in some national polls now because neither Obama nor McCain has Clinton in their sights.  She is insulated from the appeals and negatives of the republican party, which might explain why she became the female face of Fox News.

Furthermore, her supporters have displayed a greater unwillingness to support her opponent in the general while Clinton contests a race that is no longer within reach.  We've seen it in exit polls again and again.  It's her supporters attempting to aid her own argument about the constituency she wins.  It's not unintelligent of them, but I don't think it reflects reality.

This will change once Clinton endorses and campaigns for Obama.  But I think there will be no greater force to move Clinton supporters into the Obama camp and away from McCain than McCain's own domestic and foreign policy proposals, particularly on issues that matter to women like Roe v. Wade, health care and education.

Among Dem primary voters, the most difficult constituency for Obama to bring under his tent will undoubtedly be older (50+) voters.  Florida will not likely be in the Dem column this year. But I also hold the belief that in a hypothetical general race between McCain and Clinton in FL, it would likely be much closer than anyone would care to suggest after a hard-fought general. I would bet on neither.

Perhaps Thomas Franks next book should be titled Whats the Matter With Kentucky? Now that Kansas has elected Kathleeen Sebelius and Nancy Boyda among others.

Ah but given that Lunsford leads McConnell and that Yarmuth and Beshears have been elected I guess that wouldn't be fair either.

Those seem like good reasons for Clinton to cease and desist so we can begin to change the polls. She got stronger when she adopted the GOP meme against Obama and praised McCain. Remember 'me'n my friend McCain have credentials, Obama has a speech'? That put her numbers up a bit so she's gotten worse and worse to make a little headway. After South Dakota the dems need to unite, quit bsing about "popular vote" in a delegate contest and get to work on winning the GE.

Worse than Republican attacks (which HRC has always had to endure and by now is largely impervious to, is the maedia mantra that the game is over. Obama only got to a consistent lead in the tracking polls after this was called as a result of NC and IN primaries. How else could one explain the shift that happened. Usually the effect is even more pronounced as there is a tendency to rally around a presumptive nominee, as we say with Mccain , Kerry and all previous candidates. The fact that this has only happened to a small extent is in itself telling.

When we all know there's only a week or so before all the polling finishes, it's very telling that Obama's supporters have upped their chorus for Hillary to drop out in the last few days. If they really believed it was over, why not wait? Of course, it's the realization that the results from Puerto Rico and a lead in the popular vote could still give her the nomination.

This attempt to win by default is damaging any chance of party unity. If this were a sporting event and the side that was ahead were screaming for the other side to give up before the final whistle, how would that go down with the fans and the media? In this case, the media just adds to the pile-on.

If we lose in November it's the unprecedented vitriol and contempt that has been displayed to Hillary and her supporters by the Obama fanatics that will have been responsible.

It's an oddity that Clinton has become the stronger GE candidate against McCain. When I voted for Clinton back in Feb, she wasn't any stronger than Obama, but as the campaign has went on, Clinton has become stronger against McCain than Obama, even as her chances to win the nomination dwindle. As someone that just wants Dem to win the presidency, Clinton wasn't my first choice, but her chances look pretty good now.

What's so odd about it?  Obama's been getting hammered from both Hillary and the GOP.  The GOP's been semi-supporting Hillary in the Dem race ever since it became clear, a few months back, that Obama was going to be hard to overtake.  After a couple of months of the GOP's holding its fire (and Obama's attacks were always restrained, knowing he'd need Hillary and her supporters in the fall), of course Hillary started to look better.

This isn't rocket science.  Same thing would have been true in reverse - in fact, it was true in reverse, just a few months ago, when the GOP had been aiming its guns at Hillary, before they figured out Obama had the upper hand.

This is ridiculous.

Many of the talking heads on the TeeVee have been mouthing these kinds of historic "truths."  I remember Mort Zuckerman of US News on CNN: "No Democrat has ever won the WHite House since 1489..." or whenever.

Yeah.  Until they do.

Such "truths" can change at any time.  

Every 4 years the electorate is different.  There's 4 years of people dying and 4 years of new people turning 18 and becoming eligible to vote.

This is clearly a change election, and we are in for a periodic generational realignment.  What the alignment will be remains to be seen.

But, probably, (my speculation), this results in additional gains for Democrats in the midwest, Mountain West and parts of the South.

This leaves the Republicans as a regional party, still solid only in the Deep South and parts of the Great Plains, and probably Texas.

In such a generational relaignment, the Democratic Party could even run a weak candidate and probably win.  Fortunately we are running a strong (Clinton) and a really strong (Obama) candidate.

This has been said before and it's been said better, but I still can't stop myself!

The idea that you can measure who the strongest GE candidate is right now is, I believe, deeply flawed.  
It's dangerous, then, to make that a serious consideration for Super Delegates.  The same is true for the popular vote argument.  It would be one thing if the numbers were profoundly convincing, but they are ambiguous at best.  Given the ambiguity and the tension of the campaign, I find it distressing the way that Jerome and other commenters (including Obama supporters) consistently manipulate data to meet their needs.  I also feel that the general dismissal of Caucus states in the context of the popular vote is extremely disillusioning especially given that a significant number of those caucus voters are exceptionally informed Democratic activists who have been sustaining the party through difficult times (while a large portion of supposed Clinton voters of KY and WV abandoned the party and voted for GWB twice!).  

For me, an Obama supporter, the argument that both candidates should make is the following: I am the better candidate because I will be a better President.  Why? Because . . . .

"Electability"?  No.  Rather, who is most worthy of being elected.  

One of the reasons that Obama has such passionate supporters is that he inspires the belief that cynical discussions of electability can be marginalized in the face of actually following and doing what one thinks is RIGHT.

Vote for Hillary because it is the right thing to do.  But enough with specious & speculative claims that have not a single historical precedent suggesting accuracy.

I am TIRED of the cherry picking of polls to help whichever side of the argument.  It is time for us to come together as DEMS and TAKE BACK THE W.H.!  

Someone is going to lose the primary.  As of now, reality shows that someone to be Hillary Clinton.  There are to be a bunch of S.D. announcements this week for Obama.  That will cement this thing.  Whether any of us like it or not, the rules for the primaries are the rules.  Obama will win. (If you don't like it, work with the DNC to change this for the next G.E.).

The "my candidate wins more than your candidate" sh-t has got to STOP.  Either one is way more electable than Grampy McSame.  Start focusing on that, and we'll all be happy campers in mid Nov! To continue to bad mouth either Dem candidate is bad for the party.  Ronald Reagan got one thing right: Thou shall not disparage another party member.    We here on the blogs need to heed this message.  Because come Nov.  we have a much better message for the General populace.  

Those who are still smarting because their candidate isn't winning, need to practice PARTY loyalty.  Hillary will be a loyal campaigner once this is formally decided.  Surely the rest of you will follow her example?  

I find it TROUBLING that the Obama campaign is making it clearly obvious and "showing their cards" when thinking about the Electoral projection.  How in GODS NAME can you concede FLORIDA AND OHIO!!! This is so STUPID my GOD what are we thinking???  My God if these remaining Supers don't save us from Electoral Disaster, then oh well.  I guess the country deserves what they get.  Also the McCain campain must be so EXCITED that they don't have to face HRC.  They can now fight for traditional democratic states instead of playing defense.  WOW HRC leads McCain in Kentucky and West Virginia.   Truthfully the writing's on the wall guys if you have to talk about surrendering 47 electoral votes (OH,FL) then we are so SCREWED....

Please do not give Hillary any more fodder to help her take on "the victim role."

Please, please now Bill is saying "cover-up," Hillary has "no understanding" of why anyone would want her to give it up.  Now I hear by the "electoral count" she would be ahead???????

Dear Hill and Bill!
Primary is still on....
Primary rules still intact...
You do not and will not have the delegates.....
Please-you are looking like you two are becoming unhinged-and it is not good.  End with respect!!

Funny how that didn't come to pass.  You know, maybe we should just let this thing play out instead of acting like Chicken Little.

...in the sense that this looks more or less like a "how can Obama win?" diary rather than an "Obama's got such an uphill struggle" concern-diary of the type he's been churning out for the last few months. In fact if anything I think he's being rather over-optimistic about Florida, which I don't see as more than a long shot (although admittedly it's still rather early to tell, as some hidden strength may be unearthed once the seating issue is resolved and Obama actually does some serious campaigning there). I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Kentucky and West Virginia are "natural swing states" though, as they've been trending against the Democrats for a long time and the Kerry campaign, to cite the most recent example, clearly wrote them off at an early stage in favour of a Gore-states-plus-Ohio/Florida strategy. I don't think these kinds of "historically this state has always been Democrat" arguments are of great value, as times and demographics change - in very crude terms the south has been turning redder and the west and east coasts bluer for quite some time now. Still, I'm glad to see Jerome is starting to cut down on the snide comments and beginning to offer more constructive commentary. Hopefully we'll see more of that in the future.