There are lots of paths to the nomination without 3 of the big 4.  In fact, in the recent Survey USA CW head-to-head, Obama [i]loses[/i] 3 of the 4 and still both wins and wins by a slightly larger margin than Clinton.  CO, VA, and NV are all red-to-purple states that Obama is very strong in.  The 50 state strategy means that there are 50 states in play.

So far away from the election that the polls do not mean a lot.

Look back a year. McCain was a sure loser for the R nomination and Clinton was inevitable.  

New electoral math:

Michigan moved from "Leans Democratic" to "Toss-up" (From an 80% chance of winning to a 54% chance of winning).

Yesterday also saw Pennsylvania shift from Likely Democratic to Leans Democratic. On Monday, Ohio moved from Leans Democratic to Toss-up.

Ten states with 135 Electoral Votes are either a pure Toss-Up or just slightly leaning to one party or the other. These are likely to be the early battleground states of Election 2008: Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan, Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), and New Mexico (5).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/election_2008_electora l_college_update

This is really obvious I think to a lot of people that aren't sycophants on either side of the race.

There are multiple ways you can win without Ohio OR FL.  I can't stand hearing that tired, WRONG refrain that democrats can't win if we don't win OH and FL, it is just wrong and in typical democratic fashion defeatist.

There were not and are not "other paths to victory".
Notwithstanding Obama's rhetoric to the contrary,
the red/blue divide is entirely real.  It has been
correctly pointed out that it is more of an urban/rural
divide than a state one, but  states where rural
areas swing the outcome will continue to be red.
We MAY well do better than we have, withIN
some of these states, but we are NOT going to do
better ENOUGH to actually WIN any of them (and
thereby do better, electorally, among red
states).  We just have to pick one off.
Or two if the first one is as small as Nevada.

The problem with Rendell's analysis is that the
converse is equally true: in blue states that
are dominated by their urban areas, we are also
not going to do worse enough to lose any
of them.  By insinuating that a black nominee
could lose reliably blue Michigan or Pennsylvania in the
general, Rendell is either exposing his own racism, or just
succumbing to the extreme pressures of a desperate campaign.
If it is the latter then the only proper person to blame is
Hillary Herself, and resorting to this kind of shit
really does completely unfit her to be our nominee.

I don't think Obama has much of a shot at winning FL unless he pulls off one of those 40-state landslides.  A number of Obama supporters seem to agree with me on this one.

His chances in the Rust Belt states of MI, OH and PA are harder for me to assess.  What it comes down to is whether he can develop credibility on the issue of the economy with the blue-collar types who are suffering the most from this recession.

Hillary certainly has that credibility; her weaknesses are in other areas.  The question is, is Hillary running away with these voters because they don't consider Obama an acceptable option, or are they truly fine with whichever of them happens to become the nominee?

I understand all the arguments, but arguments and reality are two separate things.  Personally, I have no doubt whatsoever that Obama would be far better for these people's economic interests than McCain would, but I'm not the person who needs to be convinced.  I think it's an open question.

Look, of course there are other paths to a win than winning 3 of the 4 major swing states.

What you don't seem to get is that it's a matter of calculating probabilities. You don't want just one path -- you want as many paths as possible. Is this point too hard to understand?

If you stand a good chance of winning 3 out of 4 of the big states, your overall chances are vastly better than some one who can't, and must rely instead on all the electoral planets lining up in a good number of smaller states, any one of which might sabatoge his chances.

But I guess we're all obliged to be idiots now, since that is what the prospects of one of our candidates requires.

I would also note that her Dem votes would likely become his Dem votes. Winnign primaries doesn't mean anything about General Election electability. The question is, who is bringing in the most Independents, crossover Republicans, and first-time Dem voters? THAT'S electability.

Yet another diary wasting time on relating primaries to general election. Even Rendell, today, has said that Obama would likely win PA and a recent poll has Obama doing BETTER than HRC in PA against McCain. Point is, it is too early to even consider these things. Assuming HRC is so popular in PA, will she campaign for Obama if gets the nomination...and will the mayors/govenor of PA help Obama? Assuming the answer is yes (if it is no, we are all in a real big mess), than Obama's relationship to PA in the GE will be quite different. The same will be said about Wisconsin - if HRC is the nominee - the local Wisconsin Dems and Obama will help her...the democratic nominee will have (hopefully!) and need the support of ALL democrats. Please understand this. Our Supreme Court depends on it, our soldiers and our standing in the world depend on it, our economy depends on it, our fellow citizens under the poverty line depend on it.

Win only one, and that's it.  I'm still of the view that that we should just focus on Congress.

I just think no one beats a war hero.

The worst part is Obama can very realistically lose ALL 4 of these states.

He is weak in all these rich reagan democratic states.

Winning two ? Even winning one will be a struggle for Obama.

Remember this, If McCain listens to the bush family & picks Romney as his VP, Michigan will be very tough for Dems. While if he goes with the other faction, he picks Gov. Crist & FL is off the table.

And people have to Add electoral rich MA & NJ to the Big 4. ( Again, two states with millions of working class white reagan democrats)

These were the states that went GOP during the Reagan era.

Right now, a poll two weeks ago shows McCain beating Obama in NJ. While Clinton wins easily by double digits.

A poll is set to come out of MA in April. Watch closely. McCain will lead Obama. Its only a question of how much.

Bottom line, Hillary Clinton is STRONG & favored in PA,FL,MI,OH,NJ,MA.

While Obama is to be kind, an underdog in ALL 6.

Obama has VERY LITTLE ROOM for any error.

Any Democrat who loses even one. PA or NJ or MA or MI - its pretty much big trouble.

With Hillary, she also has 3 RESERVE states that Al Gore could not win in 2000.

AR,WV & NH. - Hillary is leading in ALL 3 for GE.

She carries all of Gore's states, even this small states will put her over.

Obama again is weak all 3.  With certain defeat in AR & WV.

Hillary has MANY combinations to victory.

The Problem with breaking for the norm is the need to form new coalitions in states that aren't generally reliably Democratic - Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, etc.  That's a gamble.

I think Obama needs to worry about keeping PA and NJ (not so much MI) then attacking McCain in red states.  I sincerely think he needs a strong governor for a VP - and I'm still leaning toward Sebelius or Schweitzer so that while he protects those reliably blue states the VP can go on offensive in the Mountain West and Southwest.  For Obama, I worry about PA, NJ and to a lesser extent OR and MI.

I think Clinton will be able to hold the entire NE and will need to fight on the West Coast and in the Midwest.  However, I think she may yet win over Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia and Florida with Wes Clark on the ticket and her appeal with Arkansas.  The Midwest will decrease in importance, but I think Wisconsin and Minnesota would come around in either case.  Worry about WA, OR, IA and to a lesser extent MN and WI.

I think they both need VPs that can speak to their weaknesses and provide valuable insight.

We are at peril if we assume NJ & MA are going democratic "very easily" under Obama. There are some groups of people there who really think Obama is "just words". May be due to their experience with Gov Patrick.

There are other paths to victory, as you mention.  However, I would rather go the route where we think we can most easily pick up PA, OH, FL, and MI.  That makes what we have to do elsewhere much easier.  If Obama fails in some of these big states, as well as possibly NJ, then he has to do extremely well everywhere else to compensate.

The idea we need to win three of the big four might be a myth, but never-the-less winning three of the four gaurantees a Democratic win. We shouldn't be talking about barely getting by, we should be talking about a Democratic win of at least 300 EV in what should be a Democratic year. McCain may be tough, but he's still basically running for Bush's third term.

I almost think it's silly talking about electability at this time, there are too many dynamics in the general that can't be fully analyzed now. But I guess I'll try to do it anyway. Right now I see both Obama and Clinton both carrying all the Kerry states (PA and MI are concerns though). Both will also carry Iowa, New Mexico, and Missouri. Plus I see the following.

Clinton: Ohio, Arkansas, Florida for 322 EV
Obama: Colorado, Nevada, Virginia for 302 EV

Florida for Clinton though in contigent on both Florida delegates getting seated at the convention (after Clinton wins the state for the second time), and McCain not picking Crist as VP. Otherwise it will be Clinton at 295, which is still 25 more than is needed to win. Both are very electable if they run good general election campaigns.

In July of 1988 Michael Dukakis held a 17! point lead over the first George Bush. Al Gore opened a nice lead over Dubya coming out of his convention. Don't count McCain out

Looking at the big four states.
Florida,Pennsylvania,Ohio and Michigan.

It is reasonable for us to concede Florida- The state has a strong Senior,Cuban,and Veteran Population which McCain is popular with along with the states popular Governor Charlie Crist.

Who ever is the Democratic nominee (Obama and Clinton is favored to win
MI,OH,and PA- These states are industrial states represented by popular Democratic Governors.

Here's the deal, With more news today of the economy going south, the candidate who can make the better argument on improving the economy particularly for middle incoem Americans is going to work. We need to simplify the tax code, close corporate loopholes, put more tax dollars back into the pockets of working americans. We need to address the economic mess of healthcare, making it more affordabel and accessible. For a great plan go to to the AMA website. Theirs is the most sensible plan put forth to make it accessible and affordable.

We need to put forth an energy program that in the short term allows for drilling in the Gulf, builds new refineriers and nuclear power plant. AT the same time we continue to research, investigate and roll out new technologies. Make these three items the centerpiece of this election and I guarantee the candidate wins...

Mostly I accept some of the ugliness on political blog sites as the "price of doing business" but lately some of the diaries over here are so over the top they reek.  Is there anything anyone can do to get the level of discourse back to something resembling normal?  This is not my candidate versus your candidate bickering, this is Swift Boat, GOP-type, garbage and it does not belong here.  How the hell is anyone going to vote for anyone when this is over?  Can we please turn this down a bit, or give up any pretense to this being a Democratic site and just become Fox, Freep, Drudge, since there are too many over here right now trying to emulate all those guys.

I read this and not only don't want to vote, but am not sure I want to be part of the human race--and now this is not "just politics."

I can't see Obama winning the nomination or, if he did, the GE. Using this interactive electoral map:

http://www.270towin.com/

I come up with Obama 254, McCain 284.

Obama: HI, WA, OR, CA, CO, MN, IA, MO, WI, IL, MI, NY, VT, ME, MA, CT, RI, NJ, MD, DC.

With Hillary as the nominee, I see her with 328 EVs, McCain 210.

Hillary: HI, WA, OR, CA, MN, IA, MO, AR, WI, IL, MI, OH, NY, VT, ME, MA, CT, RI, PA, NJ, MD, DC, and FL.

If Hillary doesn't win OH, that'd still be 308 vs. 230. The point is that Hillary would win NM, AR, PA, NH, and FL, giving her the best chance of beating McCain in November.

Keep in mind that if Obama should unwisely become the nominee, the GOP and the 527s are going to make mincemeat out of him. His negatives are insurmountable.

This analysis ignores Hillary Clinton's very real problem winning Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon or Washington against John McCain. Forget the reddish states like CO and NV. If Hillary cannot win IA, OR or WA, then she MUST win OH and FL and AR and WV to win. This can happen, but it puts her in a must-win category as much as Obama would be in.

Virginia, BTW, is NOT a Reagan Democratic state. It's increasingly populated by well-educated, wealthy moderate Democrats like Tim Kaine and Mark Warner. Kaine's endorsement of Obama, and Obama's blowout win in Virginia, should show the kind of support he'd have in the general election. NC is a possibility too. These are different places than they were in the 1990s.

As for OH, SUSA has BOTH candidates winning by 10.

And as for FL, Obama only trails McCain by 2, even without ever campaigning in the state.

blueincolorado wrote:

And if the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton, with her "thirty-five years' experience", is losing (and she is) to the man she says is unfit to be CiC, and whom her supporters call an empty suit, how is she going to fight the man she's been giving her quasi-endorsement to for three weeks?

Man, you nailed it!  Brilliant...

A question for the experts here at MYDD:  

In the event that neither FL or MI are seated at the convention, does the threshold number of 2025 delegates to win get changed?

Seems to me that if the delegates from those two states are not available to either candidate, then the bar to reach 2025 is effectively more difficult to reach.

"1. Win what John Kerry won."

Yes, and Mr. Obama has won 13 of the 20 contests (including DC) that Kerry won in 2004.

Clinton/Obama both win
CA,NY,IL,PA,OH,MI,NJ,MA,WA,MD,MN,WI,CT,I A,OR,NV,NM,HI,ME,NH,RI,VT,DE,DC. 289ev

Clinton wins.
AR,and WV. = 300 ev

Obama wins
VA,MO,and CO.

We can give Obama and Clinton all of the Kerry States- 252 plus NM and IA- states that narrowly went for Gore in 2000. 264 ev. Lets add NV to the Democratic collumn. 269ev.

For Obama- we replace VA with MI. 265
and PA with OH. 264 ev.
We also with Obama replace NH with MO= 271 ev.

Another Scenario is lets assume either Clinton or Obama win in 2008- which candidate could flip Texas.

Here's the deal, With more news today of the economy going south, the candidate who can make the better argument on improving the economy particularly for middle incoem Americans is going to work. We need to simplify the tax code, close corporate loopholes, put more tax dollars back into the pockets of working americans. We need to address the economic mess of healthcare, making it more affordabel and accessible. For a great plan go to to the AMA website. Theirs is the most sensible plan put forth to make it accessible and affordable.

We need to put forth an energy program that in the short term allows for drilling in the Gulf, builds new refineriers and nuclear power plant. AT the same time we continue to research, investigate and roll out new technologies. Make these three items the centerpiece of this election and I guarantee the candidate wins...

When Bubba was elected in 1992.

Excluding AR.

He won CO,GA,KY,LA,MO,MT,NV,OH,TN and WV.

Which candidate can win those states.

It's too early for this.  We need to focus on the best candidate, whomever that maybe.

Polls in these states will go up and down, when people start comparing the Dem nominee to McCain.  

Who each of the nominees select as their VP makes a difference as well.  Re:  Hillary - Strickland, Obama - enter Dem Gov here or McCain - Nelson/Pawlenty.

This is plain and simple folks. We had 8 years of the worst administration in history. Yet we are talking about squeaking by a candidate who , while well respected, has shown little will to reverse the course drastically enough and who has kissed ass of all the villains who ruined the last 8 years of this country.

If we are still talking about squaeaking by, then we need to be discussing why the Democratic Party is so lame in selling their side of the story. And it is more than the candidates themselves. The Democratic senators, reps are also culpable.

This is a further update on the "Key States in the 2008 Presidential Election" analysis I circulated last July. (If you did not get a copy and want one, please send me an email with "Key States" in the Subject line.) These are states in which the Democratic Presidential ticket needs to compete effectively in November in order to have a good chance of being elected. The Democratic Presidential ticket must win one or more of these key states, in addition to the 20 states with 252 electoral votes carried by the Democratic Presidential ticket in 2004.

Here's an update on the ten key states: Arkansas; Colorado; Florida; Iowa; Missouri; Nevada; New Mexico; North Carolina; Ohio; and Virginia.

Arkansas (6 electoral votes): Hillary Clinton won with 70% of the vote (202,010) to Barack Obama's 27% (77,970) in this state's February 5th open primary. Since Independents were able to vote, it may be viewed as an especially good indicator of the Democratic candidates' potential appeal in November. Arkansas has voted for the winners of the last nine Presidential elections. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 17% in 1996 and by 18% in 1992. Since 1964, the only other Presidential election in which the Democratic ticket carried the state was 1976, when Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale won with a huge margin of 30%.

Colorado (9 electoral votes): Obama won with 67% of the vote (79,344) to Clinton's 32% (38,587) in this state's February 5th closed caucuses. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Colorado by 5% in 2004. This was a lower margin than the 2000 election, in which the Republican ticket carried the state by almost 9%. The Republican ticket carried the state by 1% in 1996. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 4% in 1992. Colorado has voted Democratic in Presidential elections only three times since Franklin Roosevelt's candidacies: Clinton-Gore in '92; Johnson-Humphrey in '64; and Truman-Barkley in '48.

Florida (27 electoral votes): Clinton won 50% of the vote (865,099) to Obama's 33% (571,333) in this state's January 29th closed nonbinding primary. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Florida by 5% in 2004. This was a higher margin than the 2000 election, in which the Republican ticket carried the state by less than 1% (537 votes) in a highly controversial election. Overall, the Republican ticket carried 58 of the state's 67 counties in 2004. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 6% in 1996. The Republican ticket carried the state by 2% in 1992 and by 22% in 1988. Florida has voted for the Democratic Presidential ticket only three times since 1964: Johnson-Humphrey with 51% in 1964; Carter-Mondale with 52% in 1976; and Clinton-Gore with 48% in 1996. Republicans have not won the White House without winning Florida since 1924.

Iowa (7 electoral votes): Obama won 38% of the vote to Clinton's 29% in this state's January 3rd open proportional caucuses on.  (The Iowa Democratic Party has not released the actual vote count.) The Republican Presidential ticket carried Iowa by 1% in 2004. This was the first time the Republican ticket carried the state since 1984. The Democratic ticket carried the state by .032 percentage points in 2000. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 10% in 1996 and by 6% in 1992. The Democratic ticket carried the state by 10% in 1988, which represented the largest Democratic margin since 1964, when the Johnson-Humphrey ticket carried Iowa with a margin of 24%.

Missouri (11 electoral votes): Obama won 49% of the vote (405,284) to Clinton's 48% (395,287) in this state's February 5th open primary.  Since Independents were able to vote, it may be viewed as an especially good indicator of the Democratic candidates' potential appeal in November. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Missouri by 7% in 2004. This was a higher margin than the 2000 election, in which the Republican ticket carried the state by 3%. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried this state in 1996 by 6% and in 1992 by 10%. With one exception (1952), Missouri has voted with the winner of every Presidential election since 1900. No other state has this record of accuracy in Presidential elections.

Nevada (5 electoral votes): Clinton won 51% of the vote (approximately 59,000) to Obama's 45% (approximately 52,000) in this state's January 19th closed proportional caucuses. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Nevada by 3% in 2004. This was a lower margin than the 2000 election in which the Republican ticket carried the state by 4%. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 1% in 1996 and by 3% in 1992.  Since 1964, Nevada has voted for the Republican Presidential ticket, except for Clinton-Gore in 1992 and 1996.

New Mexico (5 electoral votes): Clinton won 49% of the vote (68,084) to Obama's 48% (67,010) in this state's February 5th closed primary. New Mexico has had the two closest most recent Presidential elections. In 2004, the Republican Presidential ticket carried the state by approximately 6,800 votes (less than 1%). In 2000, the Democratic Presidential ticket carried the state by 365 votes (.006 percentage points). Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by almost 8% in 1996 and by 9% in 1992. The Republican ticket carried the state by 5% in 1988, which had been the sixth consecutive Presidential election in which the Republican ticket carried New Mexico.

Ohio (20 electoral votes): Clinton won 54% of the vote (1,207,086) to Obama's 44% (979,025) in this state's March 4th open Democratic Presidential primary. Since Independents were able to vote, it may be viewed as an especially good indicator of the Democratic candidates' potential appeal in November. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Ohio by 2% in 2004. This was a slightly lower margin than the 2000 election in which the Republican ticket carried the state by less than 4%. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 6% in 1996 and by 2% in 1992. No Republican has ever been elected President without carrying Ohio.  

Virginia (13 electoral votes): Obama won 64% of the vote (620,919) to Clinton's 35% (344,477) in this state's February 12th open primary.  Since Independents were able to vote, it may be viewed as an especially good indicator of the Democratic candidates' potential appeal in November. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Virginia by 9% in 2004. This was a slightly higher margin than the 2000 election in which the Republican ticket carried the state by 8%. The Republican ticket carried the state by 2% in 1996 and by 4% in 1992.  Since 1964, the Democratic ticket has not carried the state, but the margins have often been close.

Of the ten key states, one has yet to hold its primary. It is:

North Carolina (15 electoral votes):  This state's Democratic Presidential primary will be held on May 6th. The Republican Presidential ticket carried North Carolina by 12% in 2004. This was a slightly lower margin than the 2000 election in which the Republican ticket carried the state by 13%. The Republican ticket carried the state by 5% in 1996 and by less than 1% in 1992.  Since 1964, the Democratic Presidential ticket has carried this state only once - Carter-Mondale by 11% in 1976.

The winner of the popular vote in the Democratic primary or caucus in each of these key states will have a higher likelihood of carrying that state in November. This is a critical consideration in determining who is likely to be the Party's most successful Presidential candidate in the general election.

Summary

Thus far, Hillary Clinton has won five of these key states -- Arkansas (decisively), Florida (decisively, but in a primary that was not recognized by the Democratic National Committee for the purpose of selecting delegates to the Party's convention), Nevada (solidly), New Mexico (slightly), and Ohio (solidly). Barack Obama has won  four -- Colorado (decisively), Iowa (solidly), Missouri (slightly), and Virginia (decisively).  Clinton's popular vote total in these keys states was 3,179,630 (2,314,531 if Florida's vote is excluded), or 52.7%, vs. Obama's 2,852,885 (2,281,552 if Florida's vote is excluded), or 47.3%.

Of these states, Clinton's five have a total of 63 electoral votes, while Obama's four have a total of 40 electoral votes. Together with all of the 20 states that went Democratic in the 2004 Presidential election, both Clinton's and Obama's key states would have enough electoral votes to give the Democratic Presidential ticket victory in November.

This analysis does not assess, however, the possibility that the Republican Presidential ticket, headed by John McCain, might win one or more of the 20 states that went Democratic in 2004. Based on the margins of the Kerry-Edwards ticket, the 2004 Democratic states that might be winnable by the Republican Presidential ticket in 2008 are: Michigan (17 electoral votes, 3.4% Democratic margin); Minnesota (9, 3.5%); New Hampshire (4, 1.3%); Oregon (7, 4.1%); Pennsylvania (21, 2.5%); and Wisconsin (10, 0.4%). These six states have a total of 68 electoral votes.

--William Arnone
william.arnone@ey.com