Hillary's Swing State Advantage

The Obama camp contends that Clinton's performance in the primaries is not indicative of her performance in the general election.

A new Gallup study suggests otherwise:

Swing states won by Clinton, excluding Florida and Michigan:

Swing states won by Clinton, including Florida and Michigan:

The analysis:

In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.

In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain. Both Democrats are statistically tied with him for the fall election.

The Gallup study directly supports Clinton's assertion that she will be a stronger general-election candidate against John McCain in crucial battleground states, based on her primary election performance.  Obama, on other hand, cannot claim a similar advantage.

Cross posted at TexasDarlin

Tags: Convention, Electability, gallup, general election, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, meet me in denver, nomination, obama, poll, superdelegates, swing states (all tags)

Comments

253 Comments

Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Hillary Clinton is clearly the stronger general election candidate against John McCain.  The superdelegates should be persuaded by objective studies such as this one which highlight her GE strength in key battleground states.

by TexasDarlin 2008-05-28 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Clearly, eh?

I noticed those Gallup numbers favor the ones Clinton won, of course, including Kentucky and West Virginia.

Interesting that Obama's only three points behind, even including those two states.

I wonder what a matchup with Obama's wins would reveal...

by ragekage 2008-05-28 10:27AM | 0 recs
I am guessing that those are states the Dems

have lost in recent elections..

Are we going to just throw that gain away?

Looks like we might.

by architek 2008-05-28 10:47AM | 0 recs
Bottom Line

According to Gallup's May 12-25 tracking polling, Clinton is running stronger against McCain than is Obama in the 20 states where Clinton can claim popular-vote victory in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. By contrast, Obama runs no better against McCain than does Clinton in the 28 states plus the District of Columbia where he has prevailed. On this basis, Clinton appears to have the stronger chance of capitalizing on her primary strengths in the general election.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107539/Hillar y-Clintons-SwingState-Advantage.aspx

Should Obama become the nominee, the case for a unity ticket is very, very strong.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-28 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Bottom Line
2 things ain't gonna happen: 1) HRC winning the nomination 2) HRC being on the ticket
by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-28 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Bottom Line

Then 1 thing happens after that: Obama will lose.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-28 11:27AM | 0 recs
Go to Gallup

They look at that question.

by lombard 2008-05-28 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

by ragekage 2008-05-28 10:48AM | 0 recs
Yup. Typical democrats.

Losers of 7 of the last 10 elections. Now  you know why. They pick people who cannot win the GE.

by cosbo 2008-05-28 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Nothing like winning the battle, but losing the war:

by KnowVox 2008-05-28 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

This late in the game?

This must be snark?

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-28 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Do you use the same words for every diary?

by environmentally blue 2008-05-28 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

No; the cut-and-paste dead-enders do. Donate to Hillary now!

by Firewall 2008-05-28 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Welcome everyone,  meet environmentally blue.

One of the new McBloggers.

You can tell who they are by the pathetic names.
And really weak one liners,  remember Trixta?  how about ChitownDenny(RIP).

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-28 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

your constant name-calling and negitivity is not helping anyone

by trytobereal 2008-05-28 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

You seem to be on TR spree -- a little presumptuous for someone with all of about 8 comments, huh?

How bouts you cool your itchy trigger finger...

by zonk 2008-05-28 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

8 comments, defending a McBlogger?

sounds like another mcblogger

Look as long as our Primary is wrapped up and there are headlines that McCain is hosting a "blogger camp" this summer then you got to assume these 16 year old rejects who thinks the conservatives will accept them  then I have to assume anyone attacking Obama or our party en masse is a GOP operative.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-28 11:16AM | 0 recs
Heh, Its All They Have

Seriously - when they resort to using the same thing comment after comment in diary after diary you know you've already won.

by alegre 2008-05-28 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Heh, Its All They Have

The only thing Hillary's won is a trip back to the senate and the animosity of the African-American community. Not what I'd call the best of consolation prizes.

by Firewall 2008-05-28 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Heh, Its All They Have
As a Clinton supporter, I am surprised that you what winning is...
by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-28 10:44AM | 0 recs
I guess it really means you've won

when a user resorts to the same thing diary after diary.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-28 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Heh, Its All They Have

We learned it from you! You're an inspiration!

by ragekage 2008-05-28 10:47AM | 0 recs
Ha

yup.

You've won.

I suggest sparing us from your diaries and just enjoy the summer and Hillary's inevitable nomination - there's no need to rub it in.

Pay no mind to the delegate counts, the media, or reality -- Clinton has won!

It's over - there's no more need to bludgeon us with the indisputable facts.  No purpose is served by continually rubbing our faces in it - you're gonna need us in the fall, remember.

We surrender.

On behalf of all Obama supporters, I hereby offer my sword in defeat.

by zonk 2008-05-28 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Heh, Its All They Have

It is so fascinating to see Alegre drive by every now and then to make silly little comments like this one, but rarely (on the off chance that she once did - I have a hunch never is a more appropriate term) responding to substantive criticism and questions with substantive responses.  

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-28 01:39PM | 0 recs
Won what?

A primary?  No...wait.  Sorry, that ship has sailed.

by lollydee 2008-05-28 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

I forgot, is TD more NoQuarter or Hillis44?

Her reccers were here instantly:

JoeySky18
easyE
moevaughn
nikkid
environmentally blue
soyousay
pan230oh
leisure

This is a NoQuarter production right?

Also, someone tell that guy to cut his hair if he wants to continue pretending to be a Democrat.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-28 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Pretty sure this is an H44 emanation...

The NoQuarter crowd generally congregates to the viscerally offensive rather than logically flawed.

by zonk 2008-05-28 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

These cherry-picked statistics from a single poll don't even come close to the type of extreme circumstance that would cause superdelegates to overturn the popular vote.  Lets be honest now, do you really expect them to look at this stuff and suddenly all move to Clinton because she is a few percentage points ahead in some states?

by catalysis 2008-05-28 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

It's not about convincing supers.  It's about making the echo-chambers over at other websites feel good.  By posting this, Texas gets to bask in their affection for a bit and they all get to enjoy another hearty round of "those meaaaan Obama supports didn't even listen to our case" as if this was some new, groundbreaking argument that hadn't been refuted dozens of times from people on both sides of the fence.  This way they still feel like the relevant underdogs that they make their candidate of choice out to be.

This is no longer about Obama vs. Clinton, it's about supporters vs. supports, donchaknow.

by apd 2008-05-28 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/may/ma y28.html

Let's get over the whole "polls in May mean anything" kick, okay?

by terra 2008-05-28 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Damn!  Ouch...

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-28 10:53AM | 0 recs
Yeoowezza!!!!

Shocking, an establishment dem., picked for his experience and with the blessing of the DLC, polls great early then gets trounced?

by notme54 2008-05-28 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeoowezza!!!!

The DLC?

The Clintons founded the DLC and Obama isn't a member.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-28 11:36AM | 0 recs
That map was about Kerry

by notme54 2008-05-28 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

They're on the run, no matter the nominee we pick.

by ragekage 2008-05-28 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Mojo'd for... um... WOOHOO! :)

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-28 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

The GE is not today, and it is not conducted via a poll. You make a valid argument but clearly this nomination fight is in the final stretches and clearly there is a winner winning by the metrics that determine winning...so....Will you support the democratic nominee whoever it is?

by Iago 2008-05-28 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

But why bother? She will never get a chance to prove you right or wrong. I truly don't understand this kind of diary this late in the process.

by Becky G 2008-05-28 11:04AM | 0 recs
Bye troll

However, just focusing on the swing states in Clinton's and Obama's respective win columns, the two are fairly similar. Clinton beats McCain in her purple states (including Florida and Michigan) by 49% to 43%, while Obama slightly trails McCain (43% to 46%) in these states -- a nine-point swing in the gap in Clinton's favor. Conversely, Obama beats McCain in his purple states (49% to 41%), while Clinton trails McCain by one point, 45% to 46%, in the same states -- also a nine-point swing in the gap in Obama's favor.

by Builderman 2008-05-28 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Hillary Clinton has clearly been getting a free ride since mid April when both Obama and McCain turned their sites on each other while Clinton threw the mother-in-law apartment's kitchen sink at Obama and gave McCain a free ride.

by kasjogren 2008-05-28 11:29AM | 0 recs
Obama's problem must be

that he's so mysterious, eh SoCal?

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/04 29/mystery-man-obama

by JJE 2008-05-28 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem must be

Good point.

Go away, troll diarist!

by Lawyerish 2008-05-28 10:29AM | 0 recs
heh, well, on the plus side

she didn't call him "uppity" in this diary.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-28 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: heh, well, on the plus side

oh thank god, Texas Darlin called anyone upity yet.

PROGRESS!

Now if we can get Alegre to stop referring to EVERYONE as boy.

I know thats what racist southerners used to call black people so I dont know where Alegre is coming from.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-28 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: heh, well, on the plus side

calling someone a racist just because you disagree with them is totally uncalled for and desperate.

by trytobereal 2008-05-28 11:09AM | 0 recs
ha

I didn't call her "racist" --- I merely pointed out she had called the African American candidate "uppity."

Conclude what you will.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-28 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: ha

ah a 'dog whistle' on your part, and you think that is an excuse?

by trytobereal 2008-05-28 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: ha

She did call Obama 'uppity' in one of her diaries.  Is that a 'dog whistle' on her part?

by map 2008-05-28 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: ha

got a link?

by trytobereal 2008-05-28 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: ha

nope, looks like you don't and are just lying to make your ego feel better for being called on what you are doing.

by trytobereal 2008-05-28 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: heh, well, on the plus side

TRd for TRing people just because your in love with Socal darling.

She has said alot of "racist" things, enough to get her booted from this site for some time.

TD gets no love or respect from anyone on this site.

Alegre for all her faults is not a bad person, but the liar TD definately is.

I would suggest just go back to hillis44, put up some walls and pretend that she won.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-28 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: heh, well, on the plus side

you were the ones trying to paint her as racist with no evidence beyond that you do not like the candidate she backs. And of course you TR me for calling you on your name-calling and other insulting and demeaning behavior.

It is considered bad form to down rate someone you are having a dispute with so I shall refrain from your 2nd deserved TR from me. Sadly you have once again shown that you do not respect this site, it's rules or other posters.

by trytobereal 2008-05-28 11:24AM | 0 recs
Since your first comment was yesterday

You're hardly in a position to be lecturing on the subject.

Was there a registration drive at Hillis44?

by JJE 2008-05-28 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Since your first comment was yesterday

pardon me? care to back that up with something, anything at all? Or are you just one of the ones who flings their poop at the wall and giggles when it sticks?

by trytobereal 2008-05-28 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Since your first comment was yesterday

oh, and look at Mae Scott and a few others if you wish, all purported BHO supporters, only a few recent comments and a tring of TR's of folks you like to insult every day. Funny how we don't see you talking to "her" about the dkos registration drive. well, no not funny, just typical.

by trytobereal 2008-05-28 12:08PM | 0 recs
Is she riding a high horse

and lecturing people about the site rules?

by JJE 2008-05-28 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Is she riding a high horse

why are you?

by trytobereal 2008-05-28 12:41PM | 0 recs
No U!

great substantive reply.

by JJE 2008-05-28 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: No U!

you give non-substancive you get it right back at you. simple logic, try it someday troll

by trytobereal 2008-05-28 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Since your first comment was yesterday

OK, I used this thing called "Search MyDD" (try it someday, really) and looked for diaries with "uppity" in them. Only a few were found, none by TexasDarlin, you might be thinking of the one by linfar, but the word was not used about BHO

Truth is  I used to fill a little uppity about gas prices because in 2004

But about herself. So it seems in all respects you are not just incorrect, but totally wrong and even more trollish for trying to smear a diarist for no good reason.

by trytobereal 2008-05-28 12:15PM | 0 recs
I'm not thinking of TexasDarlin at all

I'm not the one who made the uppity comment.  Get straight who you're talking about lest your indignation become embarrassment.

by JJE 2008-05-28 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not thinking of TexasDarlin at all

no, you are just an enabler. do you think that makes you look better?

by trytobereal 2008-05-28 12:42PM | 0 recs
so you concede you were wrong

that's a start.

by JJE 2008-05-28 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: so you concede you were wrong

so you are admitting you approve of and support that lie? it's one or the other and so far i have not seen you TR that direct false attack on another poster so you do seem to apporve of lying in order to get your way.

by trytobereal 2008-05-28 04:20PM | 0 recs
is it a lie?

did your search pick up everything ever written by SoCal?  It would seem not.  I'm not going to call someone a liar unless I'm confident they are lying.  It's a shame you aren't as careful as I am about making such charges.

by JJE 2008-05-28 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem must be

Oh I didn't realize this person was just a OMG EVIL FOREIGN0RZ person.  Good to know, I will just file her hate diaries with Michael Begela's.

by kasjogren 2008-05-28 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

by ragekage 2008-05-28 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Why don't you try posting something actually current.  

Like ALL OF THEM SHOWING HILLARY WINS by 5 points

....and Obama loses to McCain.

Quinipiac
Gallup and
Rasmuessen

by environmentally blue 2008-05-28 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Yeah, Gallup said today Obama was 45, McCain 46. Not quite five points. But nice try. And it's because people like you, when they answer the phone, vote for McCain in these polls over Obama, whereas I would never, no matter the animosity I might feel towards Senator Clinton for her atrocious campaigning, vote for Senator McCain.

Sorry, but electoral blackmail don't win elections.

by ragekage 2008-05-28 10:40AM | 0 recs
True that... nt

by Student Guy 2008-05-28 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

All within the margin or error.

by venician 2008-05-28 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Yes, the delegate leader should drop out now!  What is he thinking?  Can you believe that he has the Audacity to even think about competing in the GE!  Thanks for opening my eyes!

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-05-28 10:30AM | 0 recs
This must be snark.

Seriously.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-28 10:47AM | 0 recs
Yes, it's snark

But I was hoping the "Audacity" word would clue people in.  I need to work on my snark, I guess...  Cheers!

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-05-28 11:00AM | 0 recs
If only she'd spent more time...

racking up delegates instead of making up lies about ducking sniper fire, she'd have been able to back up these polls with...you know...delegates.

by Firewall 2008-05-28 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: If only she'd spent more time...

BO made a reference to Auschwitz in his 2002 speech against Iraq war. At that time it was his grandfather who heard about Auschwitz.

Obama 2002 speech

Quote:
"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don't oppose all wars."

In 2008, the story changed from grandfather to uncle. But this time his uncle not just heard about Auschwitz. BO said his uncle actually went to Auschwitz.

Quote:
"..an uncle who was one of the..ah..who's part of the first American troops to go to Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camp."

You be the judge if this is an innocent mistake or a deliberate act to exaggerate family history for political gain.

First, parents participated and met at MLK march. - lie.
Second, father benefited from JFK chartered flight. - lie.
Third, uncle liberated the infamous death camp. - lie.

by JoeySky18 2008-05-28 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: If only she'd spent more time...

Get this copypasta outta here! BO's about to become the nominee of your party (presuming you're a Democrat). Why are you trying to smear your nominee?

by Firewall 2008-05-28 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: If only she'd spent more time...

Actually, this has been thoroughly debunked. His uncle was at Birkenau, not Auschwitz. Snopes.com also debunked the Kennedy and MLK thing. What a bastard, huh? But good job looking like an idiot for using busted talking points?

by ragekage 2008-05-28 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: If only she'd spent more time...

If by debunked you mean proven that he made shit up, or at least mispoke. Just because he gets caught and says sorry does not mean it's been debunked.

by nyarch 2008-05-28 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: If only she'd spent more time...

There's a difference.  He didn't make up that his uncle was involved in liberating a Nazi camp, he just mentioned the wrong camp.  The underlying story was true.  

Hillary being shot at by snipers... not so much underlying truth to that.

by belicheat 2008-05-28 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: If only she'd spent more time...

And you won't ever hear me justifying the sniper crap.  Nor do I think this thing is a story worth talking about, I wish he knew more about WWII history and Europe considering the subcomittee he is on, but it is not a big deal.  My point was making a mistake and correcting it does not qualify as debunking. For it to be debunked it would have had to have been made up from the start, but you know...he said it.

by nyarch 2008-05-28 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: If only she'd spent more time...

She did the same thing on March 6th!
TIME: Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close--Democratic Party elders would step in and say, "This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall"?
CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.

So if hillary said it before, what does that mean?

by venician 2008-05-28 10:42AM | 0 recs
Buchenwald isn't an infamous death camp

I know you types skew low-info, but this ignorance is stunning.

by JJE 2008-05-28 10:53AM | 0 recs
Err... Yes it is...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou rce/Holocaust/buchenwald.html

Buchenwald

Buchenwald was one of the largest concentration camps established by the Nazis. The camp was constructed in 1937 in a wooded area on the northern slopes of the Ettersberg, about five miles northwest of Weimar in east-central Germany. Before the Nazi takeover of power, Weimar was best known as the home of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who embodied the German enlightenment of the eighteenth century, and as the birthplace of German constitutional democracy in 1919, the Weimar Republic. During the Nazi regime, "Weimar" became associated with the Buchenwald concentration camp.

Buchenwald first opened for male prisoners in July 1937. Women were not part of the Buchenwald camp system until 1944. Prisoners were confined in the northern part of the camp in an area known as the main camp, while SS guard barracks and the camp administration compound were located in the southern part. The main camp was surrounded by an electrified barbed-wire fence, watchtowers, and a chain of sentries outfitted with automatically activated machine guns. The jail, also known as the Bunker, was located at the entrance to the main camp. The SS carried out shootings in the stables and hangings in the crematorium area.

Most of the early inmates at Buchenwald were political prisoners. However, in 1938, in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, German SS and police sent almost 10,000 Jews to Buchenwald where they were subjected to extraordinarily cruel treatment. 600 prisoners died between November 1938 and February 1939.

Beginning in 1941, a varied program of involuntary medical experiments on prisoners took place at Buchenwald in special barracks in the northern part of the main camp. Medical experiments involving viruses and contagious diseases such as typhus resulted in hundreds of deaths. In 1944, SS Dr. Carl Vaernet began a series of experiments that he claimed would "cure" homosexual inmates.

...

It's where the infamous human skin lampshades were found.

by kraant 2008-05-28 11:03AM | 0 recs
Sarcasm

I was mocking the commenter's claim that confusing Auschwitz for Buchenwald is some kind of horrible lie.

by JJE 2008-05-28 11:16AM | 0 recs
It's hard to tell the...

... sarcasm here.

Sorry.

Probably for the best, there's folks out there who would have read that and agreed with it.

by kraant 2008-05-28 11:29AM | 0 recs
No worries

I should have made it clearer.

by JJE 2008-05-28 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: If only she'd spent more time...

JoeySky18:

Congratulations!  You're the most uninformed human on the internet.  Take a bow.

(golf clap)

by fogiv 2008-05-28 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: If only she'd spent more time...

Not same speech...reading comprehension for the win.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

It says my grandfather heard the stories...it was his uncle that was at Buchenwald.  Please ltr

by Sychotic1 2008-05-28 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: If only she'd spent more time...

How did he hear the stories of fellow troops that first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka when they were in Poland?  The Red Army entered Auschwitz, and Treblinka was bulldozed and covered up by late 1943.

by mdana 2008-05-28 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: If only she'd spent more time...

The news...

You know they had it back then.

by Sychotic1 2008-05-28 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

tips and rec'd.

by nikkid 2008-05-28 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Why?

by ragekage 2008-05-28 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

nikkid, this has to be snark.

Snark like when you insinuated that Hillary's campaign was more important than soldiers dying in Iraq.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-28 10:37AM | 0 recs
Two more recs like these

and you get the McCain coffee mug.  

by kellogg 2008-05-28 10:44AM | 0 recs
If only she had won

I bet Al Gore would have an advantage now too.

Let's work for our party and the person who will be the nominee.

by notme54 2008-05-28 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

The Democratic Primary is a delegate race, and Hillary Clinton has lost that race.

Any "advantages" Hillary might theoretically have in a theoretical general election match-up are irrelevant at this point, because she will not be a candidate in the general election.

http://hillaryis404.org

by baghdadjoe 2008-05-28 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Yes. it's a delegate race.  And Obama doesn't have enough delegates to win the nomination.

by JoeySky18 2008-05-28 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

He's 46 away. Don't worry. He'll get there.

by Firewall 2008-05-28 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

He is several hundred away, just like her. Not a single super casts their vote till August.

by nyarch 2008-05-28 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

LOL. Keep telling yourself that. :^)

by Firewall 2008-05-28 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

It's fact.  Did I say it would change the outcome? no.

by nyarch 2008-05-28 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

He's 46 delegates away, man.

This is good news for Democrats.

by Firewall 2008-05-28 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

If you think he is the best candidate, or that he can win, or should he win he would be a good leader.  I know my opinion on the first two, and I have yet to be convinced on the third.

by nyarch 2008-05-28 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

HRC has the winning coalition to win the general election.  The other guy doesn't have it.

by JoeySky18 2008-05-28 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

When the pollers call me, should I say I won't support Senator Clinton? You know that's why she's polling where she is; because Obama supporters refuse to support McCain, no matter the nominee. Clinton supporters, on the other hand...

by ragekage 2008-05-28 10:36AM | 0 recs
Got to win the nomination

before you win the general.

Sadly, Sen. Clinton could not beat an empty suit who has no experience.

by notme54 2008-05-28 10:36AM | 0 recs
Democratic primary voters

are not a winning coalition.  I recall John Kerry did quite well amongst them, but alas.

by JJE 2008-05-28 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

What the hell's a swing state?

I for one don't care whether Obama wins these so called "swing states," as long as he reaches 270 electoral votes.

I don't think you get it TexasDarlin, we don't care about this argument anymore. Obama is stronger in different states than Clinton, and can get to 270 just as easily.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-28 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

No we actually get it.

Its the Obama fans with blinders that are going full blast regardless of the NOv. outcome.

by libdemusa 2008-05-28 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Aren't you the guy who thinks we've got a "liberal media"? Why would you trust their polling data?

by Firewall 2008-05-28 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Oh yeah, I forgot how naive I am.

Only a few states actually get to vote in november (FL, MI, OH, PA), everyone else gets their states vote decided for them. You HAVE to win those four to become president.

I'm so damn blind, how could I not see that?

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-28 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Obama doesn't have 270 electoral vote.

Clinton 327 Mccain 194 17 Ties

Obama 266 Mccain 248 24 Ties

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl inton/Maps/May28.html

by JoeySky18 2008-05-28 10:39AM | 0 recs
BREAKING!!!!

Nobody has any electoral votes yet!

by notme54 2008-05-28 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

How about them maps on the page here? Ever seen them?

by ragekage 2008-05-28 10:41AM | 0 recs
I CAN HAZ PROFESY?

In June 2002, Ross Perot led in the Gallup poll.  How'd that work out again?  

by kellogg 2008-05-28 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I CAN HAZ PROFESY?

Only off by a decade, pretty good at math compared to most of the comments I have seen posted.

by mdana 2008-05-28 12:14PM | 0 recs
Whoops. 1992. Thanks.

by kellogg 2008-05-28 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

You might want to take a look at the map in the top left corner of the MyDD home page.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-28 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage
I love this. Here's what the Clinton supporters' argument boils down to.
 * Obama can't be the Democratic nominee even if he gets the majority of delegates because none of the delegates vote until the convention.
 * However, Hillary has more electoral votes.
by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-28 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

That is pretty damn funny.

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-28 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

This case has never been made before.  Quick, someone alert the superdelegates!

by apd 2008-05-28 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

LMFAO.  It's really sad isn't it?  

I mean, I understand that Bill and Hillary are just playing politics, but her supporters really buy into it all.  And to think the loudest of them are the ones who diminish the seriousness of Obama's appeal by calling his supporters 'cultists' and the like.

To buy the Clinton's argument is to suspend disbelief.  Incredible mental gymnastics must be exercised when considering McCaullife's tenure at DNC, Ickes vote to strip the delegates, Hillary's pledge to follow DNC Rules, Hillary's many comments about 2025 delegates and the fact everyone knew the votes in FL and MI weren't going to count.

I mean, when Ickes himself admits that his position has only changed because Hillary is losing now, I don't know how the sheep follow so blindly and with such venom towards the presumptive Dem nominee.

by jv 2008-05-28 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Even Slight good news for GOP in November

Even just a mild wind of good news hits the Republicans by October or November, Obama will lose to McCain by a huge margin.

As it is today, we have a damaged, wounded Republican party vs. An All Good MSM Obama support & Barack is literally struggling against McCain.

While you have a Clinton who is being attacked by Dem leaders, the MSM. All calling for her to drop-out. Yet, if the elections were held today,
she would win by a massive electoral landslide !

What a country! What a party!

Only in America !

40 Millions democrats will have lots of sleepless nights in November.  

by libdemusa 2008-05-28 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Even Slight good news for GOP in November

Attention everyone- this is the man who thinks we belong to the "Democrat" party. Draw your own conclusions.

by ragekage 2008-05-28 10:37AM | 0 recs
anyone with a handle as hamhanded

and obvious as "libdemusa" must be a troll.

by JJE 2008-05-28 10:43AM | 0 recs
Not to mention

the bad spelling and grammar.  Haven't used a hide rating in a while.  Thanks for the heads up.

by corph 2008-05-28 11:54AM | 0 recs
Not to mention

the bad spelling and grammar.  Haven't used a hide rating in a while.  Thanks for the heads up.

by corph 2008-05-28 11:54AM | 0 recs
McCain has not said one bad thing

against Sen. Clinton.

Why is that?
Would you expect that to continue if she were the nominee?

by notme54 2008-05-28 10:38AM | 0 recs
Texas Darlin


   your analysis completely botches the Hillary argument that allowing FL and MI helps Democrats, while not counting them hurts them.

  Yet Hillary's advantage, when FL and MI are included GOES DOWN, while Obama's is unchanged.

  What does that tell you? Never mind that there are far more than 6 swing states besides FL and MI.

by southernman 2008-05-28 10:36AM | 0 recs
you wanna try shedding some light

on that little tale?

by environmentally blue 2008-05-28 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: you wanna try shedding some light


   No problem. Just look at the data. In polls excluding MI and FL, she leads McCain by 10. In polls INCLUDING MI and FL, she leads by less. So MI and FL being dangerous territory with an Obama nomination is crap.

  Not to mention that there are far more than 8 swing states. Which states are included in the poll? NM, IA, CO, NV, MO, VA, OH, PA, NH, FL, MI, VA, WA, OR, MN, WI are all swing states.

  The worst state on this list for Obama is FL and he's down 10. Gore was down 12 in FL at this point in 2000.

  The idea that Clinton is stronger than Obama is crap.

by southernman 2008-05-28 11:18AM | 0 recs
C&P from the other diary about current polls

Not this again.

This has been explained over and over. Countless times by now. GE polls taken this far out mean NOTHING. If they did, we'd be at the end of President Gore's second term by now.

The fact is that Obama has been under nonstop attack for weeks now while Clinton has been given a pass. McCain has ignored her, and Obama has done nothing but praise her recently. Hence, her GE numbers are greatly inflated.

I guarantee you that McCain wouldn't ignore her if she were to become the nominee. The attacks would begin, and her numbers have nowhere to go but down.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-28 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: C&P from the other

Ok, so he has been under attack for weeks...and he is not doing so hot.  Try 6 months of this, how is he gonna grow his numbers under those conditions?

by nyarch 2008-05-28 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: C&P from the other

Once the nomination is settled, Obama can begin the campaign against McCain. So far, he's been fighting with one hand tied behind his back. That will soon change.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-28 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: C&P from the other

Whoah, give the man some credit.

He took off the gloves,  now Im just waiting for that finishing move with the brass knuckles

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-28 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

This is a valid, if untimely, argument.  Fortunately the General Election is in November. The soon to be presumptive democratic nominee will have plenty of work to do and plenty of time to get it done. Looking forward to seeing you commit your talent and enthusiasm towards winning back the white house.

by Iago 2008-05-28 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Well said Iago. Soon we'll all be on the same team. Things look good for the Dems this year. So let's keep things in perspective.  

by fugazi 2008-05-28 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

i just realized, if you actually read the comments of these Obama supporters, they post the same thing in every diary.

"oh no not this again"

"this is a stupid diary"

"you're a troll"

"talk about hypocrisy"

Get some new talking points, PLEASE.

by environmentally blue 2008-05-28 10:39AM | 0 recs
When diaries are posted

dealing in fairy tales they get the responses they deserve.

by notme54 2008-05-28 10:42AM | 0 recs
COL! Fairy Tales?

Yeah because we ALL know what hacks the folks at Gallup are right?

Didn't they endorse Hillary? /snark

Sheesh - you boys can't even give credit to Gallup for feck sake.

by alegre 2008-05-28 10:45AM | 0 recs
Is this snark?

Serious question.

by notme54 2008-05-28 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: COL! Fairy Tales?

No matter how many times you call us "you boys", alegre, it's not going to give Hillary the nomination.

She lost. So sad. So bad!

by Firewall 2008-05-28 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: COL! Fairy Tales?

I am a girl, so WHY do you keep calling me "boy"

Is that reverse misogyny on your part?

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-28 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: COL! Fairy Tales?

Ironic how us females with dissenting opinions are consistently emasculated by this commenter, isn't it?

by asherrem 2008-05-28 10:56AM | 0 recs
Shouldn't that be "masculated" or...

"enmasculated?"

by nklein 2008-05-28 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: COL! Fairy Tales?

reverse misogyny
There's actually a word for that: misandry.

by rb608 2008-05-28 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: COL! Fairy Tales?

Boys?  That's insulting mysogenic language.  Also, no one is attacking Gallup, but the fact that polls this far out matter.  Another new strawman argument.

by mefeck 2008-05-28 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: COL! Fairy Tales?

TR'd for continually referring to Obama supporters as boys, despite being called on it numerous times.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-28 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: COL! Fairy Tales?

Hey Alegre, you're aware that some Obama supporters are in fact female?  You know, they have girl parts?

Maybe referring to all Obama supporters as "boys", which connotes both youth and male gender, is both slightly insulting and....uhm...what's the word I'm looking for...

SEXIST.

by fogiv 2008-05-28 11:30AM | 0 recs
COL! Fairy Tales?

Yeah because we ALL know what hacks the folks at Gallup are right?

Didn't they endorse Hillary? /snark

Sheesh - you boys can't even give credit to Gallup for feck sake.

by alegre 2008-05-28 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: COL! Fairy Tales?

LOL. Now you're not even giving us the 24h break before you start repeating yourself. :^)

by Firewall 2008-05-28 10:48AM | 0 recs
What's with the gender baiting?

by notme54 2008-05-28 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: What's with the gender baiting?

I guess it's reverse misoginy.

Maybe she is a southerner.

And yea there are plenty of rednecks who "say" they live in DC (ie DC county).

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-28 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: COL! Fairy Tales?
Can you please post another diary so I can shame rec it?
by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-28 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: COL! Fairy Tales?

Again with the "you buys" business. For someone who so virulently decried sexism, you sure seems more than willing to participate it.

Isn't it nice to know that you can say what you want with impunity since anybody who tries to use the "community moderation" tools on your comments gets their rating privileges taken away?

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-28 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Heh. He wants us to get new talking points, when he can't bring up anything substantiative himself.

by ragekage 2008-05-28 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: talking points?

When tex/SoCaldarlin can get on the rec list without a shout-out to here non-MyDD reccer's (I love to make up words)maybe it would be different.

Look,; Canadian Gal is full-tilt for Clinton..
posted alone at first..
check out the rec's she got..from everyone...

Challenge to Tex/SoCaldarlin:
Do you have the courage to post alone?

answer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpjrx4cA6 Uo

by nogo postal 2008-05-28 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Where are the McBush bashing diaries???

by Spanky 2008-05-28 10:41AM | 0 recs
by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-28 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage
It is all over internet, starting here:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl inton/Maps/May27.html
Supers endorsing Obama committing crime against party and will of the people.
by engels 2008-05-28 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Oh, my god. It must be true if it's all over the inter net.

by venician 2008-05-28 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Let's act as if the worst polls we can find are true and let that motivate us to get out and work to elect our nominee in November.

by fugazi 2008-05-28 10:48AM | 0 recs
A crime?

Are you getting measured for a brown shirt?

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-28 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: A crime?

I don't think he is a dkos'er or BHO'er so not sure why he would...oh and thanks for both violating Goodwins Law and jumping the shark in the same post.

by zerosumgame 2008-05-28 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: A crime?

You're so clever. I wish I could be more like you.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-28 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: A crime?

By the way, Godwin's law is not violated, it is simply triggered.  Or, more accurately, it is proven.  You might want to look it up.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-28 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

That's very strong support for the argument that Clinton should be the nominee.

by MediaFreeze 2008-05-28 10:52AM | 0 recs
May polls are really accurate

Like this one from the same site.  

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/may/ma y28.html

by kellogg 2008-05-28 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: May polls are really accurate

Excellent point...

The election always breaks to the Republicans because the media goes after the Dem. Obama isn't even winning 273 right now. Once they get done with him the electoral map will look more like this beauty:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

We sure can pick 'em.

by MediaFreeze 2008-05-28 11:17AM | 0 recs
Always breaks to the Republicans?

Not hardly.  This time in 1992, Clinton was in third place.  May polls mean fuck-all.

by kellogg 2008-05-28 11:25AM | 0 recs
Here the maps....

Clinton 327 McCain 194

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Obama 266 McCain 248

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

And this is before Obama gets ripped apart by the media. Certainly he'll lose OH. I would doubt he carries CO or PA. We are going to get killed if we nominate this guy.

by MediaFreeze 2008-05-28 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Here the maps....

HRC's map is before people run negative ads against her.  And Obama's is before he runs negative ads against McCain.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-28 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Here the maps....

It seems like so much fun now. Just wait until fall and see if you are still so smug. We are about to make a huge mistake.

by MediaFreeze 2008-05-28 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Here the maps....

yes, he will lose OH, PA, VA, IN which will make it more like
Obama 225 McCain 313
as a best possible result for Obama.
But I agreed with you he can lose in CO, NM and even in NH and IA, which will make it rather like
Obama 200 McCain 338

I guess Dems love to lose...

by engels 2008-05-28 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

At this point in the process TD you are just preaching to half the church that agrees with you. The other half has already moved on and won't be convinced.

So  why I applaud your support for your candidate those who believe she must be the nominee at all cost are already there. Those who are not will never be swayed.

by jsfox 2008-05-28 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Cougars have a hard time letting go, once their jaws are locked.

by venician 2008-05-28 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

So  why I applaud your support for your candidate those who believe she must be the nominee at all cost are already there. Those who are not will never be swayed.
As one who also appreciates fervent dedication to a worthy cause, I'd join in the applause except for an inconvenient situation.  Almost nothing we do here is going to have any substantial result on the nominating process at this stage of the game.

Most of the primaries/caucuses are over.  There's no one left to be swayed.

Most of the rabid candidate diaries at this point have little use (or purpose, I'd argue) than to sow discord within the Dem party as a means of helping McCain.

by rb608 2008-05-28 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

I absolutely agree...

I am sure there is a percentage who would love to se Obama loose in November, just so they can have their "I told you so moment."

What they fail to see. Should Obama lose in November a good chunk of the blame will be laid at Hillary's feet.

by jsfox 2008-05-28 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

If Obama gets the nomination the electoral map will look like it did for McGovern or Dukakis. How many times do we need to learn that a candidate that does not hold onto middle class workers loses. The Democrats are poised to nominate someone who will get clobbered in November. I just hope the superdelegates wake up before it is too late.

by MediaFreeze 2008-05-28 10:49AM | 0 recs
If Sen. Clinton

got the nomination by breaking the rules then half of the democratic party would turn against her, she would still be broke and the flood of republican hit jobs combed straight out of a history book would start.

We won't have that problem.

by notme54 2008-05-28 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: If Sen. Clinton

If Fl & MI are seated fully, those are the rules

If the AD's go for her, those are the rules

Are you now saying that you will NOT vote for the nominee who wins by the rules?

by trytobereal 2008-05-28 11:21AM | 0 recs
Reread my post

nowhere in there are the words "me", "I" or "you" in them.

I have not threatened to stomp my feet, turn blue and not vote for the nominee.

You must have been reading too many comments by bitter people who refuse to support the nominee.

by notme54 2008-05-28 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Reread my post

ah so your a mind-reader! cool, what will my love life be like? or do you just have the power to read the minds of millions of other people you have never met and know nothing about? How sweet of you to share your magical powers here.

by trytobereal 2008-05-28 12:04PM | 0 recs
No problem

Prognostication seems to be the forte to many on this board.

by notme54 2008-05-28 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: No problem

so you are just jumping on the band-wagon? how very original

by trytobereal 2008-05-28 12:39PM | 0 recs
Reading comprehension is not

your greatest talent.

by notme54 2008-05-28 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

You do know that the polls show Obama beating McCain in the popular vote and in the electoral college, don't you?  

by fugazi 2008-05-28 10:53AM | 0 recs
Yep, and the Supreme Court

will be reactionary for 20 years because many supporters of Obama are blind to Clinton's superior popularity among the total electorate.

Clue to some: not just Democrats vote in the GE.

by katmandu1 2008-05-28 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, and the Supreme Court

That's why Obama's high levels of support among independents is a good thing.

Republicans hate your candidate. They've hated her for sixteen years. Her negatives have a baseline of 50. They'd rise from the grave to vote against her.

To paraphrase Martha Stewart...

Electability: It's a Good Thing.

by Firewall 2008-05-28 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, and the Supreme Court

No need to go all weak-kneed. Obama will be fine.

by fugazi 2008-05-28 10:56AM | 0 recs
Pure, unadulterated and baseless speculation

but I predict that Obama will defeat McCain by more than 100 EVs.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-28 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Of course Clinton is the stronger candidate.
Plus, all of her diary laundry has already been aired.

Don't think for a New York minute that the Goppers are going to be as gentle with Obama as the Dems have been.  Whether what the Goppers do is right, moral, ethical, etc. is beyond the point.  They will do it.  Clinton would have been able to deflect it.  Obama will wilt.

Also, of course, Clinton will not be the nominee.  So the Dems are stuck with another weak candidate in a year when they should be trouncing the Republicans.  Obama is the least experienced candidate that either party has run since the Republicans ran Wilkie in 1940.  There are many good things one can say about Willkie, but he lost the election in a landslide.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-28 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

You'll see a lot of comments that agree with you at Political Punch.  Thank god Jake Tapper write with some evenhandedness.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/107539/Hillar y-Clintons-SwingState-Advantage.aspx

by katmandu1 2008-05-28 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

by fugazi 2008-05-28 10:55AM | 0 recs
gentle like running "bittergate"

attack ads for an entire week?

Also, how long do you think it would take before the GOP brought up the Rodham pardon-selling scandal?  How about the Burkle fuck jet and Yucaipa?  Kazakhstan mining?

The idea that Hillary Clinton has been vetted is the biggest fairy tale I've ever heard.

by JJE 2008-05-28 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: gentle like running "bittergate"

the've been doing that for years. It's not going to help them with the economy and the war being what they are. If that's all they've got, it's over.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-05-28 11:00AM | 0 recs
what are you talking about?

none of those 2000-and-after problems have even appeared on the media's radar screen.

by JJE 2008-05-28 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: what are you talking about?

The pardon allegation certainly did.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-05-28 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: what are you talking about?

The Burkel jet stuff certainly hasn't, though the photos can be found in the interertubes.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-28 11:09AM | 0 recs
briefly for about a week

i see you're moving the goalposts back, so I'll take that as a concession of sorts.

While Obama has occasionally hinted at Hillary's issues with comments about divisive and "old politics", he hasn't gone after her on any specifics.  The GOP will show no such restraint.  Hillary lacks Bill's political skills (or the ones he used to have) and is unlikely to weather the storm without taking heavy damage.

by JJE 2008-05-28 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: what are you talking about?

mmmm.ok . The MSM have not covered anythign negative about Hillary Clinton since January 2000.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-05-28 11:08AM | 0 recs
not what I said

now you're building straw men so I won't bother to argue.  You keep believin' in vetted Hillary.

by JJE 2008-05-28 11:15AM | 0 recs
The timing of analysis like this is unfortunate

I wish the Democratic electorate could have seen more things like this in February, but, of course, that would have been impossible.  During the earlier part of the campaign, many poll respondents indicated they were voting for Obama based on perceived electibility.  The media and anti-Clinton forces kept reinforcing her high negatives and those impression did find their way into polls because Obama tended to run a little better against McCain than Clinton at the time.

Now, I didn't believe those polls then because I always believed that Clinton had better fundamentals for the GE than Obama.  Even though the polls now show her doing better, I can't get overly excited about them as evidence.  Furthermore, I think she is a weaker GE candidate than she was in early February due to the hostility for her in the Democratic electorate.

Again, too bad these things weren't revealed at the beginning of February when they may have had the ability to influence voters.  Now, the persuasive value of them may come too late.

by lombard 2008-05-28 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Supers
Whether you want to accept it or not, far more people see her running a dirty, vicious campaign - hence the high negs. This won't change - furthermore, if she ends up somehow convincing the supers to give this thing to her, she doesn't have a prayer of winning. You are talking about completely alienating Obama's supporters. You then have to convince the AA voters, as well as Obama's supporters to back her after they feel the nomination was stolen from them unjustly. Plus she would have less than 75 days to do it. Wouldn't happen, and I think you know that. So all this preaching and praying that the supers do the right thing is good - it's just too bad that the right thing and the thing you want are completely opposite.
by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-28 11:26AM | 0 recs
I've blacklisted you

due to your response the other day.  So, this is the last time I will respond to one of your posts.  By the way, you appear to have misread the intent of my post preferring instead, as usual, to vent your hostility.

by lombard 2008-05-28 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: The timing of analysis like this is unfortunat

Lombard, I appreciate your willingness to come at these questions with a reasonable attitude and an open mind.

I would contend that "these things" weren't "revealed" at the beginning of February in no small part because they're outgrowths of the interminable campaign process. The factors that drive the numbers we're seeing in June simply didn't exist in February, and had the race turned in different ways - if there had been some massive Obama gaffe, or if the Clinton campaign had been better situated in the post-Super Tuesday caucus states and hadn't allowed Obama to build that February/March string of wins - we'd be looking at very different maps now.

Here's the metric I'm looking at: remember that spreadsheet that "leaked" from the Obama campaign after Super Tuesday, setting out their delegate-count expectations for each of the remaining contests?

So far, it's been accurate to within a couple of delegates in pretty much every race.

That tells me something: it says the Obama campaign is really, really good at long-range strategizing - putting money and people in place in precisely the states where they need to be in order to achieve the desired outcome. Again, this is not blind belief, "hope," "Kool-Aid," or whatever other demeaning name you may want to throw at it. This is hard evidence - they said they'd produce X number of delegates at the end of the race, and they've produced X number of delegates (or even X+1 in some cases.)

That's exactly the set of skills needed to win an Electoral College race, too. Is that a guarantee of victory? There are no guarantees, but I'll take the demonstrated accomplishments of the Obama campaign team over the inchoate "well, maybe all the SDs will suddenly change their minds tomorrow" theory of primary victory any day.

The sooner the campaign can turn its focus solely to its GE goals, and stop fighting a two-front battle for both the nomination and the GE, the more resources can be devoted to the fight. One would think that would be simple common sense, but one is too often wrong.

by ipsos 2008-05-28 11:29AM | 0 recs
I agree with what you say

and I think you say it very well.  The Obama campaign obviously had a good strategic plan, followed it, and their pre-primary forecasts have been stellar.  This may be one of the best campaigns of all time and Clinton's campaign looks all the worse from the comparison.

You may be right about the lack of persuasive value of these kinds of numbers even if they could have been obtained earlier in the campaign.  The inractability of each candidate's coalitions and the relative imperviousness of them to current events and campaign efforts have been striking.  But, part of me still wonders if Hillary could have done better if she had not been tagged by so many (unfairly in my book) with the "unelectible" tag.  Unfortunately, I think she is probably more "unelectible" now than she was then despite improvement in head-to-head poll numbers.

by lombard 2008-05-28 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with what you say

I think the race could easily have gone in a different direction.

In any other year, in the absence of a rival with as many positives (first viable black candidate, anti-war position, super-organized campaign) as Obama, this race would have - and should have - been a walk for Clinton.

And if she and her advisors had been better prepared  for the way this race went - in particular, if Clinton had put more emphasis on building a campaign in the Feb/Mar caucus states - she could have held on to her early lead long enough to get to her strongholds later in the race. I don't think anyone would be calling her unelectable now if she had a solid delegate lead AND the kind of polling numbers she has at the moment.

Obama might even have dropped out by now. (And yes, I'd like to believe he'd have had the class to go out with grace and dignity, acknowledging that sometimes a good candidate simply loses, for circumstances that may or may not be entirely within their control.)

by ipsos 2008-05-28 01:16PM | 0 recs
So why is MSM saying it's over????

Democrats need to wake up now before it's too late in November.

by izarradar 2008-05-28 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

"Texas" Darlin', I'm rec'ing this diary because it presents an actual argument in favor of the strength of your candidate.  I happen not to buy this particular argument, and I should point out that the superdelegates don't seem to be buying it either.

But compared to linfar's swill, this is a reasonable and plausible argument.

I look forward to joining forces with you against McCain.

by Koan 2008-05-28 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage
Koan.. you are a gracious person..
More gracious than I
by nogo postal 2008-05-28 03:44PM | 0 recs
Hillary's May streak in Gallup is alive

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107548/Gallup -Daily-McCain-46-Obama-45.aspx

She's now led McCain every day in May.

Rasmussen is in sync with this finding.

by katmandu1 2008-05-28 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

I have no doubt whatsoever that my beloved Boston Red Sox would have swept the Florida Marlins in the 2003 World Series. They had better hitting, better defense, and the uniforms were much classier, too.

They even scored more runs in the 2003 ALCS - 31 runs to the Yankees' 30!

But if you don't win Game 7 of the ALCS, you don't go to the Series, and the Yankees won that game and got to play (and lose, as it tuned out) in the Series.

The nice thing about sports is that a Sox fan can have the luxury of sitting back and rooting (viciously, even) for the Yankees to collapse in the Series, which they did.

But politics ain't baseball. And what we have here is the equivalent of a bunch of Sox fans sitting back rooting for the Yankees to lose, when we should have Ortiz and Manny stepping up and hitting right alongside Jeter and A-Rod. Put THAT team together, and the NL doesn't have a chance in Hades.

by ipsos 2008-05-28 11:17AM | 0 recs
Is this snark?

Serious question.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-28 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this snark?

Wow, I think it is.

There is no way this is not snark.

At the end, I think the Hillaryis44 might just be snark conpsired by those Dkos jokers.

"You Boys"  a quote from Alegre

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-28 11:19AM | 0 recs
OMFG!!

This changes everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

by rf7777 2008-05-28 11:23AM | 0 recs
There is no swing state advantage

The diarist conveniently forgot to include this part of the Gallup analysis:

"Obama's swing-state victories include Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Missouri (totaling 54 electoral votes). Obama leads McCain in these states by eight percentage points, while Clinton falls one point behind McCain -- a pattern similar to that in Clinton's swing states."

In other words, Obama and Clinton are equally strong with swing states, because each have strengths with completely different swing states.  This is without including Florida and Michigan.  If you include those states as Hillary's swing states, then, Obama actually is faring better with his swing states than Clinton is faring with her swing states.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-28 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Now that the hype is ending for BHO, the serious voters are taking over.

by LA 2008-05-28 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Good snark,

nicely done!

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-28 11:35AM | 0 recs
Boston Globe Analysis

While looking to see which major media blogs discuss the Gallup results, I stumbled across a Boston Globe review of Obama's electoral strategy.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articl es/2008/05/28/questions_of_how_much_obam a_can_redo_the_map/

The Boston Globe analyzes six traditionally Republican states where Obama has signaled he will compete - Colorado, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.  Its conclusion:

"Much could change over the next six months, but analyses of each of the six states - which total 66 electoral votes - indicate that in some cases changing the electoral map will be a daunting task."

They quote guru Larry Sabato:  

"Larry Sabato, a specialist on national voting trends, said most so-called red (Republican) and blue (Democratic) states will remain so. "People shouldn't think the map's going to change to orange," said Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia."
 

There is some chance of winning Colorado and Virginia.  But problems abound.  Such problems include Georgia:  

"The last time Georgia voters backed a Democrat was Bill Clinton in 1992, and only then in an unusual three-way race with George H.W. Bush and independent Ross Perot.  "I would not expect Georgia to be in the Obama column," said Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University.

North Carolina:  

"Obama, he would need a much stronger performance among white voters overall than any Democrat has managed since Jimmy Carter's win 32 years ago.  "I'd say spend your time and money in Virginia," said Gary Pearce, a local Democratic strategist and former adviser to Edwards and former governor Jim Hunt."

SOUTH CAROLINA:

"Barring a political cataclysm, Obama will not win South Carolina, political analysts said."  * "Even under the most optimistic projections of African-American turnout, Ransom [poly sci prof at Clemson] said, Obama would have to win close to 40 percent of the white vote, a level that has eluded all recent Democratic nominees. In 2004, Kerry won only 22 percent of whites.

Mississippi:

"African-Americans make up more than a third of Mississippi's voting-age population. If they turn out in big numbers and push their share of the vote to 40 percent, Obama would probably need at least 20 percent of the white vote to win. Kerry got just 14 percent of whites in 2004."

Does that sound promising?

by katmandu1 2008-05-28 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Boston Globe Analysis

It sounds promissing to someone who wants the Republicans to win.

Why are you so excited about John McCain getting good numbers?

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-28 11:36AM | 0 recs
Sounds great, because those are bonus states

Except for Colorado, none of those states are necessary for Obama to win in the fall.  The fact that those states are even considered in play is evidence of Obama's strength, not his weakness.  

Of the 6 red-states that Obama could put into play, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, MS, Georgia, and South Carolina, Hillary Clinton has no chance of being competitive on those states.  She'll ignore them and focus on her narrow Kerry +1 strategy.  

So, since the article says Obama has a good chance of winning Colorado and Virginia, those are a 2 state pick-up over Clinton.  Obama is going to win Colorado and Virginia is a real possibility.

As for Georgia, what the article fails to mention is that there will be a "Ross Perot" factor in Georgia in 2008.  Bob Barr will be running for president on the libertarian party, and recent polling has shown Barr drawing 7% of the vote, mostly from republicans, and reducing McCain's lead over Obama to 10 points.  Meaning, Georgia is now in play.  

Even if Obama wins only 1 or 2 of these states, if he campaigns there, it will force McCain to have to campaign in what should be safe Republican states, weakening him in the more crucial swing-states.  So, even if Obama doesn't win those states, he still wins.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-28 12:02PM | 0 recs
Puerto Rico poll Hill +13

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/28/ 13630/4730/560/524206

The poll results are described by a write on Kos.  They're in Spanish. Anyone better than me in Spanish?

by katmandu1 2008-05-28 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico poll Hill +13

PR won't change the outcome of this nomination race.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-28 11:42AM | 0 recs
More proof of Obama's swing state strength

That becomes clear one you determine which candidate has a better chance of winning the other candidate's swing states.

Clinton's swing states: Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Arkansas.

Of these states, Obama has a very good chance of winning all of them except for Arkansas.  In PA and OH, the most recent polls show Obama leading McCain, even though the polls underestimate the AA vote in Ohio.

Obama's swing states: Oregon, Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Missouri.  

Of these states, Clinton is likely to win only in Minnesota and Oregon.  She could be competitive in Missouri.  She will have trouble winning Wisconsin.  She has no chance of winning Colorado or Iowa.   So, best case scenario, Clinton can only 4 of Obama's 6 swing-states.  There's also a realistic possibility she'll also lose Wisconsin and Missouri, meaning she's only end up winning 2 of Obama's swing states.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-28 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

MyDD All Stars

susanhu
TxKat
bobswern
alegre
pradeep
The Smoldering Crone
devil
LindaSFNM
Zeitgeist9000
LakersFan
izarradar
ghost 2
JoeySky18
MediaFreeze
easyE
linc
moevaughn
Koan
inFlorida
nikkid
environmentally blue
engels
katmandu1
PGraber
soyousay
LA
pan230oh
darwinism
phoenixdreamz
GendraX
thebluenote
leisure

by nogo postal 2008-05-28 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

What's that supposed to mean?

Why are you posting the names of people that recc'd this substantive diary about Clinton's advantage in the GE. Is that supposed to be threatening?

Are you saying that anyone that discusses that Obama is going to have one heck of a time winning due to his electoral map and his coalition should be named, and publicly ridiculed?

That's not debate. That's thuggery. You should be ashamed.

Listen up Dems, if we don't wake up and nominate someone who can win in the fall, we are going to get two more right wing Supreme Court Justices, and this country is going to be screwed.

by MediaFreeze 2008-05-28 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage
Jerome?
Jerome?
by nogo postal 2008-05-28 11:59AM | 0 recs
Doens't Matter

Obama's the nominee.  The superdelegates have decided that he should be.  While Clinton had a good case, they believed his was stronger.   Does the data give cause for some worry that they are making the wrong choice?  It does.   Does that change the outcome of the nomination process? No.  

by activatedbybush 2008-05-28 12:09PM | 0 recs
maybe maybe

but as I was walking my kids back from school today I thought of the famous Trinity football finish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eeEy060q rA

Hillary has tremendous grit (which opponents translate as "she'll do anything to win", I understand) -- and if anyone can achieve a miracle win it is her.

by katmandu1 2008-05-28 12:22PM | 0 recs
Grit?

she's never won a competitive election.

by JJE 2008-05-28 12:47PM | 0 recs
Grit is great

But won't help with the SD's who essentially have to appoint Clinton or Obama the nominee.  They see a candidate who has won more pledged delegates, who has raised more money, who is not tied to the past in a change year, and oh, who happens to be the first viable African American candidate in history, and there is no possible way that they will deny Obama the nomination.

Clinton has a case to be made, which she lays out quite well in her memo today (available at Time/The Page.  But it's not enough.  

Obama will either go down in history as a political phenomenon or the over-ambitous young Senator who fractured the Democratic party and cost it the Presidency in a crucial year.

by activatedbybush 2008-05-28 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: maybe maybe

I find her determination remarkable, and sometimes I admire it.  

But I hope that even her supporters have been taken aback by some of the claims she has been making recently in the name of "fighting on."  
Probably the worst are the changing measures of victory she keeps offering - and the appalling accusation that the DNC is in the same moral category as Robert Mugabe.  That's beyond grit and into dirty.

If she would like to make arguments that she has better plans or would make a stronger candidate, it's her right.  But if she is setting up the argument that the election was stolen she deserves all the criticism she gets, and more.

by TL 2008-05-28 02:43PM | 0 recs
Obama's Secret Weapon

Okay, this is an Onion article, but it's really funny:  http://www.theonion.com/content/news/oba ma_practices_looking_off_into

CHICAGO--As the 2008 presidential election draws closer, Democrat Barack Obama has reportedly been working tirelessly with his top political strategists to perfect his looking-off-into-the-future pose, which many believe is vital to the success of the Illinois senator's campaign.

lots of good lines --

by katmandu1 2008-05-28 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

it's a strong argument, she has done much better than our talking heads let on. Thumb on the scales by the media much?  Nothing new under the sun?  

by anna shane 2008-05-28 12:33PM | 0 recs
It's easy...

Stronger general-election candidates don't lose their party's Primary. Based on Hillary's Primary campaign, how could Democrats have any faith  in her abilities in a GE. You're argument would have games determined by the odds makers instead of the actual contest outcome.

It's easy....you win you go on...you lose...you go home.
 

by JoeCoaster 2008-05-28 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

I think this is the map you want:

by kellogg 2008-05-28 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

I love how you ignore the last part of the gallup piece that says this analysis means squat right now.

by skywaker9 2008-05-28 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

It doesn't say that.  

In fact the poll is getting major coverage at all the important political blogs, including Political Wire which is a huge pro-Obama blog.

by katmandu1 2008-05-28 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Look at the front page of MyDD and see the quoted paragraph beginning with "However"

by skywaker9 2008-05-28 12:57PM | 0 recs
Reason #977 note to vote for Obama

SFGate has an excerpt of a poem written by Barack Obama in 1981 for an Occidental College student literary journal.

Herein, an excerpt from "Underground": "Under water grottos, caverns/ Filled with apes/ That eat figs./ Stepping on the figs/ That the apes/ Eat, they crunch./ The apes howl, bare/ Their fangs, dance,/ Tumble in the/ Rushing water,/ Musty, wet pelts/ Glistening in the blue."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg i?f=/c/a/2008/05/28/DDKJ10S599.DTL

Jeebus, that's terrible.

(Humor attempt --please note)

by katmandu1 2008-05-28 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

The only meaningful thing to TexasDarlin is a Clinton dynasty.  Rules, procedures, just tools to manipulate outcomes, not bind the Queen.

by jv 2008-05-28 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Damn...
Why doesn't the State of OR Party Chairman buy TexD/SoCal's and fellow believers B.S.?

http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/ore gonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1211928 90383090.xml&coll=7

by nogo postal 2008-05-28 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Yes!!  It's true!!!  Hillary Clinton will beat Barack Obama by 600 points in every state!  And she will turn water into wine and wine into ambrosia - before breakfast.

One poll.  And the context is - Obama is saying nice things about her, while she's telling her supporters that if he wins he stole the nomination from the party's choice.  Gee.  Can't imagine why he's not doing as well among Ds - especially D women.

I'll worry about this if it's holding up in October.  And in the meantime, it would be nice if Hillary did not feel compelled to prove she was right by, you know, undermining the party's nominee.

by TL 2008-05-28 02:36PM | 0 recs
Persuading Superdelegates with Objectivity...
It's obvious they are letting objective studies persuade them to flock to the winning candidate.  TD, HRC's goose is cooked.  Put a fork in it, it's done.  
If she had run a campaign from the beginning that didn't assume that she already had the nomination she might be in the winning slot now.  But that is not the case.  Ready from day 1.  Apparently not.
I don't see enough Repugnican bashing diaries on here.  I do see a lot of HRC vs BO diaries on here, how can that be helpful to our party?  Let's focus our energies on the real "enemy", McBush III.      
by RoccoCobamaMama 2008-05-28 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

I bet she doesn't lose a single state in November.

by lockewasright 2008-05-28 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

The very first sentence of the Diary states:

"The Obama camp contends that Clinton's performance in the primaries is not indicative of her performance in the general election."

This is ridiculous!

Hillary was in the Primary.

She will NOT be in the General.

Her performace in the General election is Null, an Empty Set, a vacuum, ZERO, nada, zilch!

Her performance in the Primary was a close second, but not really close because she had an insurmountable deficit as far back as February.

by xdem 2008-05-28 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

You need 270 Electoral college delegates to be President.

Hillary has won 300 in the primaries.
Obama has won 217.

Therefore HIllary should be the nominee.

by HillsMyGirl 2008-05-28 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Too bad she lost already.  

She had everything going for her, the name, money, power, party loyalty, infrastructure, married to a former President, WHO CHEATED ON HER, etc, etc.

Sad to watch, but maybe we are lucky she lost...

by Hope Monger 2008 2008-05-28 04:35PM | 0 recs
Great diary!

Notice that most of the comments are about how she can't win the nomination and we're so delusional and it doesn't matter.  Not too much on the substance of your diary.

Interesting.

by psychodrew 2008-05-28 05:14PM | 0 recs
It IS interesting--
And, I also see absolutely NO discussion of the impact of Jorge Posada's absence from the Yankees, which is of equal, or greater, relevance to the Democratic nomination as the polls cited. It's shocking, I tell you, this failure to engage in substantive analysis. Shocking!
by cultural worker 2008-05-28 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Swing State Advantage

Obama needs 45 Delegates
Clinton needs 245 Delegates

"When we're roamin' the streets and we see one car
We always add one and make it two
It don't matter why we like to add one and one
Out here it's the thing to do
Now some say that screaming one plus one all night
Means we're thoughtless, cruel, and bad
But kids like you and me baby, we were born to add"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxNf2uCxd 3E

by nogo postal 2008-05-28 05:26PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads