May 28, 2004 Electoral map

Andrew Sullivan put up this map from May of 2004:

This is why electability arguments can only go so far.  Look at that map and wonder how that happened.  Ohio AND Florida should have gone to Kerry, let alone states like Nevada.  

Polls in May can be used to create a valid argument, but even if you ignore reasons why Clinton might be polling better than Obama now, Obama would have to be around 100 EVs and Clinton at 400 for them to really spook superdelegates.  Remember that they're the opposite of low information voters; they've seen this process many times before.

Tags: early polls, Electability (all tags)




Thank you!

I had forgotten how far Kerry had come down by the fall.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-29 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: map

all these electibilty arguments showcasing maps remind me of how wrong most all exit polls were this season.

the only way obama loses is by losing her supporters  and the only way we guarantee that does not happen in large numbers is by pivoting from an anti hillary stance that most diaries take to just simply let it be...

Bottom line is that nothing is changing his nomination , so why bother with childish rants and diaries .  If her supporters put up any on the other side- ignore it. Don't be afraid to agree w/ some of it... our candidate is not perfect as he and his wife have said it many times. Try understanding and even seeing some outrage in the Hillary supporters comments and you will win more of them over vs harding them against obama.  

I loved his message of one America and have grown tired of always being partisan in politics. Now its up to us obama voters to practice what he preached..

by aliveandkickin 2008-05-29 11:07AM | 0 recs
She was also supposed to sweep the nomination.

Barack was trailing in about 49 states last year.

by Firewall 2008-05-29 10:44AM | 0 recs
Some troll humor ... time for a stoning?

Hillary wasn't even running the year before that.  Top that one!

Oh, I know, Barack was in diapers when Hillary was still wearing that same pantsuit.  Oops, that backfired.


by Liame 2008-05-29 10:50AM | 0 recs
He's losing MS today ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/mississippi/election_2 008_mississippi_presidential_election

This is part of his "must win" six, which the Boston Globe talked about yesterday.

Pathetic.  In MS, Rasmussen figures 36% of the electorate will be AA, and Obama trails by six.

And wait until the good citizens of MS see the Fr. Pfleger video up at No Quarter.

by katmandu1 2008-05-29 10:51AM | 0 recs

The Globe is totally wrong on that, Mississippi is not "must win" for Obama at all. Just look at the MyDD map, which has Obama at 290 EVs without Mississippi.

by Hatch 2008-05-29 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: He's losing MS today

MS is a must win?  MS?  Mississippi would be an extra bonus state, not something that Obama is expecting to win.

Then again, why am I responding to someone who is gleeful about the chances of Obama having problems in November?

by thezzyzx 2008-05-29 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: He's losing MS today

i'm just going to echo what everyone else said

MS is not a must win, it's just a bonus state we have a good chance to turn blue

by Monolithic 2008-05-29 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: He's losing MS today

No Quarter's Larry Johnson is an ex-CIA guy who voted for Bush in 2000. The blog is well known for using racist language. You may want to reconsider your association with it.

by X Stryker 2008-05-29 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: He's losing MS today

Ah, yes, the Clintonites are now attacking a white, Catholic priest...  That will go over well in PA!

by LordMike 2008-05-29 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: May 24, 2004 Electoral map

Obama icing a pipe dream?
Clinton eats his cake.


Clinton is safer electoral candidate with more upside?
by Liame, Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:34:52 AM EST 52/725

by Liame 2008-05-29 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: May 24, 2004 Electoral map

Makes you wonder about Obama now doesn't it, considering he "is" our nominee.

by RJEvans 2008-05-29 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: May 24, 2004 Electoral map

And we all know what happened after May 2004. Republicans attacked and we did not respond. We took the beating. What makes you think any of our candidates will let that happen again?

by RJEvans 2008-05-29 11:20AM | 0 recs
I don't accept the swiftboat story..

I think that was a factor, but not as determinative as the story of 2004 makes it out to be.  I think the same sex marriage initiatives had a lot to do with it along with a motivated Republican base.  The lack of those is why I expect 2008 to be different.

by thezzyzx 2008-05-29 11:27AM | 0 recs
Pew has bad numbers up for Obama 8/10691.html

Barack Obama's favorability ratings among white women have significantly depreciated in recent months, particularly among Democrats and independents, posing an immediate obstacle for the likely Democratic nominee as he moves to shore up his party's base.

According to a new report by The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, half of white women now have a negative perception of Obama.

Forty-nine percent of white women view Obama unfavorably, while only 43 percent hold a favorable opinion. In February, 36 percent of these women viewed Obama unfavorably while 56 percent had a positive perception of the likely Democratic nominee.

Over the same period, Democratic white women's negative view of Obama increased from 21 to 35 percent, while their positive view decreased from 72 to 60 percent - roughly the same rate as white women overall.

by katmandu1 2008-05-29 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Pew has bad numbers up for Obama

Gee, why could that possibly happen?  What factor is there out there that's effecting how Obama is viewed by white women?

You know, ironically enough Clinton could have a better chance at the nomination (in a .001 is better than .00001 sort of way) if she suspended her campaign.  Right now, Obama softness in the polls can be answered with, "Well wait until the party unifies."  Clinton's best chance would be if she works hard for Obama over the next few months and he then looks horrible in the polls.  Then she might actually have an argument for unsuspending and fighting at the convention.

by thezzyzx 2008-05-29 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Pew has bad numbers up for Obama

LOL it's like the argument - I am weak, please support me. In case I am still weak after your support, then you proved your point that I am really weak.

Only in America can we find such a logic.

by Sandeep 2008-05-29 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: May 24, 2004 Electoral map

In all seriousness, it's all on Hilary. The loser in any closely contested primary contest automatically gets the massive responsibility of uniting their supporters with the winner's coalition.

Obama can't do it by himself. And if Hillary pulls that off, it'll be her greatest legacy.

Of course, she'd have to actually stop campaigning first, and that doesn't look to happen before January 2009 or so...

by Reeves 2008-05-29 11:59AM | 0 recs

THIS is the actual electoral map as of this time in 2004, and like Obama, Kerry was LOSING. your pathetic attempt at spin has been caught. the map turned out nearly exactly like it except for New Mexico

by DiamondJay 2008-05-29 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: wrong


I just changed the "24" in your link to a "28" y28.html

It's the one in the diary.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-29 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: wrong

Forgive the name-calling, but you just attacked someone for a factually correct assertion, calling it "spin."

I apologize for the harsh reply, but that really pissed me off.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-29 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: wrong

You are correct... that I put the wrong date in the title.  This is May 28th map, not May 24.  I'll fix the post now.

by thezzyzx 2008-05-29 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: wrong

there's a difference: Hillary's winning has been CONSISTENT, kerry's was not, like Obamas

by DiamondJay 2008-05-29 12:49PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads