Obama looks to the West

Obama has been campaigning in the states of NV, NM, and CO, in a campaign swing. I remember questioning a few months ago, what his electoral strategy would be, around February. At that point, that line of questioning looked obscene to those that viewed Obama as the candidate whom would be competitive "everywhere", but clearly now, we know he's not.

Take a look at the Rasmussen poll for Kentucky:

Clinton 51
McCain 42

McCain 57
Obama 32

Obama does not compete well at all throughout the Appalachia and Ozark areas of the country, and those traditional battleground states that Presidents win, Kentucky and West Virginia, are off the map for Obama, and in states like Virginia and North Carolina, he wouldn't be following the roadmap that other Democrats have traditionally used to win statewide; even in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama would need larger urban percentages to offset the Appalachia losses he's likely to incur, likewise in Missouri and Arkansas where he's not shown pull in the Ozarks.

So getting back to Obama and the SW:

Polls released last week by Rasmussen Reports found Obama beating McCain in Colorado, 48 percent to 42 percent, and in New Mexico, 50 percent to 41 percent. McCain held the edge in Nevada, 46 percent to 40 percent.

Bush lost New Mexico by 366 votes in 2000, and won it four years later by only 6,000 votes.

Nevada has proven similarly competitive, with Bush winning the state both times by less than four percentage points.

In Colorado, Bush's margin of nine percentage points in 2000 dipped to five points in 2004. Democrats have since won a Senate seat, the governor's office, two congressional districts and control of the state legislature.

But for Obama to win in the SW, he's going to have to defeat one of their own:

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

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

And win over Latinos:

The first order of business, however, for Obama is building deeper ties with Hispanic voters, who routinely favored Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton through the primary season.

Obama, an unknown on the national stage until 2004, had two problems at the outset, Richardson said. Hispanics were not familiar with him, and the Clintons had built strong support within the community over the years.

"Obama clearly has work to do," said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a progressive think tank and advocacy group that has studied immigration and the Hispanic vote.

But Rosenberg and Democratic strategists say, despite the slow start, the Illinois senator will win over the constituency, if only because the issue environment favors him . Hispanic voters, like other demographic groups, feel the effects of the economic downturn and have turned against the war, they say.

Obama advisers are mapping out a strategy that targets Hispanics, who make up 37 percent of the eligible electorate in New Mexico and 12 percent in Colorado and Nevada, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. It will include exposure in the Spanish language media, paid advertisements, heavy campaigning in Hispanic areas, registering Hispanic voters and sending well-known Latino leaders such as Richardson out on the trail.

The polls show it's doable, but its all new terrain, both for the candidate and the Democratic Party.

Aside from the SW, Obama 'may' have a better draw in Florida than those traditional battleground states listed above. Perhaps we'll know more on June 2nd, whether he has pull among Puerto Ricans, which compose a strong constituency in FL, and that could point to a more favorable landscape than the current outlook in FL.

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

A few months is a long time, because also back in Feb, I thought that Clinton would be stronger in the SW, and as we've seen, it's actually the Appalachia/Ozark areas that put her over the top against McCain in these battleground states, but Florida remains a key for Clinton as well.

With Obama as the Democratic nominee, a lot of states are going to be in play against McCain, going both ways, and in the coming months the states could change, but its also becoming clearer which states are in play, and which are not, in a McCain-Obama match-up. Anyone who thinks its a slam-dunk either way isn't paying attention.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

252 Comments

Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

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

by Please 2008-05-27 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Ah, that part got edited a bit as I waited cause another post was made, but sure, here's a few: Michigan and Wisconsin, New Hampshire.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-27 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Didn't Obama win the primary in Wisconsin huge?  Wouldn't that undercut all the central pro-Clinton arguments that she "won the big states" and therefore would win them in the general?

Obama will crush McCain in Wisconsin and Michigan, and he'll likely win in NH (polls are underestimating the increasing power of the Dems in that state).

by PantsB 2008-05-27 06:48AM | 0 recs
except

the battle ground states she won HUGE (Ohio, Florida, West Virginia and Arkansas) show her beating McSame as well, and consistently.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-05-27 06:51AM | 0 recs
Great Post - Country Polarized in Electoral Colleg

You hit it on the head.  Either side who says this is going to break one way or the other just isn't paying attention.

No question, any Democratic candidate should be up at least 10 to 15pts in the polls and have at least a projected 325 electoral votes considering the extreme weakness of the Republican party, the unpopular war, economy, housing crash, and gas prices. But that's not where we are.

The country remains polarized froma an electoral standpoint and the map won't be changing much between now and November.

The true swing states are: Nevada, New Mexico, N.H., Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin

Obama will win Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Penn.

McCain will win Virginia, Missouri, and Florida

Only these six (6) states will be in play - that's it. It is highly likely the election will come down to factors like gas prices (if they have dropped between now and November - good for McCain - if they are around where it is now - good for Obama). Will Iran act up?  If they do - good for McCain, bad for Obama.  Interestingly, Iraq will not be an issue this fall. It's clear we are withdrawing from Iraq and its just a question of how fast and the reality is that either candidate would probably get us out in the same timeframe.

A nailbiter - another 2000 and 2004 election, except THE swing state could very well be Michigan this time.

by minnehot1 2008-05-27 07:59AM | 0 recs
michigan...

with Mitt as VP. Hometown advantage

Mitt will make Mass. somewhat competitive. Not enough to flip it, but Obama will have to spend money there.

NH will also be tough.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-05-27 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

And there are a lot of Dems in both Iowa and NH who are rather peeved at Clinton for her MI-FL turnaround.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-27 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Excellent, Jerome.  

No matter how much it rankles Obama followers.  You nailed it:  She is the stronger GE candidate right now.

Period.

Obama will have to fight just to compete in states she has without effort in her purse.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 07:01AM | 0 recs
She can't run a campaign

If HRC is in the race, Oregon, Washington, Iowa, and Wisconsin are in danger even if she stops running an incompetent campaign.  She add Arkansas as a likely state and possibly Florida.  Thats it.  The elitist woman candidate from the elite New England school who uses her maiden name, has been a major gun control advocate, pro-choice, pro universal health care, who most of the country views a going to beat the conservative in Appalachia.  Perot was the difference in 1992 and 1996 in Kentucky and in 1992 in WV.  HRC has neither the charisma nor the southern white background of her husband.  

Obama brings Iowa without any effort and holds the Pacific, New England, NY, NJ, MY, Delaware, MI, WI, MN, DC, IL and PA without trouble.  He makes Virginia, NC, ND, CO, NV, even Alaska competitive while remaining competitive in NM, Ohio and perhaps Florida.  He's a better fund raiser, better campaigner and he'll make a better President.

by PantsB 2008-05-27 07:18AM | 0 recs
small correction
"who most of the country views a going to beat the conservative in Appalachia"
should be
who most of the country views as dishonest is not going to beat the conservative in Appalachia
by PantsB 2008-05-27 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

please don't use NC.  all recent general election polls show him losing there and her winning.

by nyarch 2008-05-27 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

"all recent polls?" Please cite then I only saw one where Hillary was winning North Carolina and it was by SUSA which has a terrible record polling in the south.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-27 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

any polls show him winning there?

by nyarch 2008-05-27 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

How can she be winning there when she get trounced in the primary?  How many polls show her winning NC in the general?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-27 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

She pulls in more of the middle that McCain does.  The AA population makes up 35% of the democratic electorate in NC which leads to a win for Obama.  The overall electorate in NC is only 12-15% AA.  It's pretty simple math.  They both win similar margins of the AA vote in the general, him higher of course. The difference is in the non AA vote, she wins big, he loses big.  It's the same reason he will lose states like SC, GA,and MISS even though he won them big in the primary.  It's all demographics.

by nyarch 2008-05-27 09:12AM | 0 recs
NC Not Win

If Obama wins the Dem. primary by 15 points in NC, but Hillary is leading in NC (not sure if that's tru, but I'll stipulate it) doesn't it mean that whoever wins a state in primary has no bearing on whether they would win it in the general (or be mroe competitive). Case in point, Hillary won CA but Obama consistently outpolls her ther now.

by chatters71 2008-05-27 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

oh and NV too.

by nyarch 2008-05-27 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

Her "incompetent campaign" has beaten Obama 5 out of the last seven, some by humongous, unreal margins, is within a virtual tie in pledged delegates, and will have won the big states, the swing states, and the popular vote while only spending about a third of what Obama's campaign has.

Next question.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 07:36AM | 0 recs
LOL. That was just plain funny

She got 5 out of 7 after he won, what was it 11 or 12 straight?  And your point was?

I realize the information below is a week out-of-date, but...

States & elections won with 60% or more of the vote:

BARACK OBAMA: 15 States + DC + VI

  • Virgin Islands (89.9%)
  • Idaho (79%)
  • Hawaii (76%)
  • Alaska (75%)
  • District of Columbia (75%)
  • Kansas (74%)
  • Washington (68%)
  • Nebraska (68%)
  • Minnesota (67%)
  • Colorado (67%)
  • Georgia (67%)
  • Illinois (65%)
  • Virginia (64%)
  • Maryland (62%)
  • North Dakota (61%)
  • Wyoming (61%)
  • Mississippi (61%)

HILLARY CLINTON: 2 States

  • Arkansas (70%)
  • West Virginia (67)

And your second point was?

Why has Camp Clinton spent, in your words, "about a third of what Obama's campaign has" when they have raised and spent (including her multi-million dollar 'loans) almost as much as Senator Obama?

Because a simple reading of both FEC reports will show you Camp Clinton has squandered most of its money on highly (some say over) paid management and consultants.  The fat are getting fatter, and yes, they have had less for message.  Her choice.

And your third point was?

by Eman 2008-05-27 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL. That was just plain funny

State Primaries Obama won with over 60%:

Illinois
Virginia
Maryland
Georgia
Mississippi

Primaries Clinton won with over 60:

Arkansas
West Virginia
Kentucky

Big States won by Obama:

Illinois
*North Carolina

Big States won by Clinton:

California
New York
Texas
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Florida
Ohio
New Jersey

Most dramatic non-caucus margin of victory in a state primary?

41% West Virginia -- an unreal and unimaginable embarrassment to the "presumptive" nominee.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 08:28AM | 0 recs
Yes, we know the 6-State-Strategy

and yes, we have all heard the "I was for the rules before I was against the rules" spin that Caucus States no longer count.

So yes, if one only counts the states Hillary has deemed "important states" she wins hands-down.

And yes, if we break the rules and only count those states Hillary has personally cherry-picked, she wins hands-down.

And as to her "amazing, dramatic" 41% victory with all those "hard working Americans, WHITE Americans" to whom she pandered so well, yes, she did get 9 out of every 10 WV voters who saw race as their issue.  She wins them hands-down.

However, to put Hillary's amazing 41A% comeback into perspective:

Barack also won Philadelphia alone with more votes than Hillary got in the entire state of West Virginia!

And your last point was?

by Eman 2008-05-27 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, we know the 6-State-Strategy

Barack lost Pennsylvania.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, we know the 6-State-Strategy

Actually I don't usually cite the "big state" meme, but the post I saw was so dishonest that for once I countered trash with trash.  I guess my intent wasn't clear.  

In all seriousness, if you want to look at single issue voters block voting on account of race, well there was this primary in North Carolina earlier in the month...

Racism = racism = racism.

Hillary did better in Philadelphia than Barack did in West Virginia.  WV-67/26, Philly was 65/35 I thought.  Obama got trounced in the Philly burbs.  Oh yeah, and the whole state.  I don't think Pennsylvania is the place to go if you want to make a positive point about Barack Obama.  ;-)

by BPK80 2008-05-27 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL. That was just plain funny

sorry .. Michigan doesn't count ... so it is fair that only Chris Dodd and Gravel were on the MI ballot?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-27 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

That is so off.

Clinton brings West Virginia, Arkansas, Ohio, Florida, possibly Kentucky, Missouri, and New Hampshire.  She outright prevents anything unfortunate from happening in Pennsylvania as well.  That means not having to spend $20,000,000 and every third day in Philadelphia.  

No one expects Washington or Oregon to go red this fall, so that's a pointless argument.  Sure Obama can "win more" in those two states just like he can win Illinois by 40%.  But it's superfluous.

Obama's only demonstrable strength relative to Clinton is in Colorado, Iowa, and maybe Virginia but most analysts see the polling there as an aberration and don't expect it to swing far-blue quite yet.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 07:42AM | 0 recs
Neither Democrat will "bring" WV or KY

Na ga ha.

by Bee 2008-05-27 07:52AM | 0 recs
Hmmm

I have no idea what "na ga ha" means but I'm sure it's something very kind in whatever language you speak.

by BPK80 2008-05-27 08:21AM | 0 recs
Dana Carvey/GHWB

SNL

by Bee 2008-05-27 08:25AM | 0 recs
What? what? what? I was just told above

that Hillary's amazing 41% performance in KY is one of the most important things we need to consider.

Are you really saying she can't carry that state?

Do you dare to suggest that she is manipulating?

Shame on you.

by Eman 2008-05-27 08:59AM | 0 recs
Have we nominated McGovern or Messiah?

by activatedbybush 2008-05-27 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

Your wrong about VA. I live their and it is a very doable to go blue. We have a gov, US senator AND mARK wARNER RUNNING FOR THE SENATE.

This is a strong line-up for this fall.

Latest SUSA poll shows Obama up + 9.

by BDM 2008-05-27 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

Both the governor and Senator ran as centrist Dems in exactly the opposite style of cooly academic Barack Obama.  I know Northern Virginia is growing and it's a blue part of the state but it's not enough for a candidate in the mold of Kerry to realistically out perform his 8 or 9% loss there in 2004.  Sometimes when you focus on the good parts of a state (Northern Virginia) you can forget the bad (huge GOP territory outside of the DC burbs).  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

I also live in VA, and I see Obama bumper stickers everywhere. You can dismiss the facts--like numerous polls showing Obama ahead, and two potential Democratic senators and a Democratic governor, but it doesn't change anything. Obama definitely has a chance to win VA, no matter how much Clinton supporters want to deny that.

by Covin 2008-05-27 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

Okay.  Clinton has a chance to win North Carolina, Kentucky, and Indiana then too.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

If she were the nominee, she would certainly be competitive in at least Indiana. But what does that have to do with Obama and Virginia?

by Covin 2008-05-28 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

I love it.

When Obama is up by 6-8 in Pennsylvania, it means he'll have to spend $20 million every third day there.

But when Hillary is up by only 3-6 in Washington and Oregon, it's no concern at all because "no one expects Washington or Oregon to go red this fall."

Please at least try to have a little consistency.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-27 08:48AM | 0 recs
They are not "important" states

An "important state" being henceforth and ever more defined as any state Hillary wins, and/or any state having a caucus, having ever had a caucus, or having any form of primary/caucus combination.

Word seems to be that once both Washington and Maine finish their state conventions, both will clearly be Obama delegate states. Therefore they will no longer count and can never be won by a Democrat in a general election.

Very soon ALL states West of the Mississippi, including California, will be designated "small and unimportant states."  The 19 point polling shift from Clinton to Obama has proved that California, once big, now joins Illinois as a small state.

by Eman 2008-05-27 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: They are not "important" states

"IMPORTANT"  means how many ELECTORAL VOTES the state brings to the General Election.

As in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, 85 ELECTORAL VOTES out of 270 which are very much in play if Obama is the nominee, and are likely safe Dem if Hillary's the nominee.

Oregon at 7EV, Montana at 3EV, Washington 11, Maine 4, Whoop-te-doo.

Whatever happened to all the math geniuses who were here just a little while ago, telling everyone that Hillary supporters can't count?

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 09:19AM | 0 recs
I have NEVER seen an Obama supporter negate

states like Pennsylvania or Ohio.

However, I've read and heard every possible excuse from Hillary and her camp as to why various states simply don't count.  Latte-drinking, SUV-driving, caucus-going, too small, too black, too Jesse Jackson-like, too West Coast.  Name it and the spin has been tried.

Meanwhile, Senator Obama has said, and continues to say, he will continue to play by whatever rules the Democratic Party gives him.

Had Senator Obama been allowed to campaign in Florida and Michigan, we would have seen the same kind of organization we saw in other states.

Hillary Clinton began this race with incredible name recognition and a 53% advantage.  She started with a huge base of pre-pledged superdelegates (although she now claims all others should wait until all votes are counted, hmmm).

In the past six months, Hillary Clinton has not grown her base.  She tapped out her donors.  The facts are that the more she campaigns, the more her percentages stay the same.  I don't put an emotional value on these numbers.  It's just how they break out.

by Eman 2008-05-27 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I have NEVER seen an Obama supporter negate

Wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels I can't even begin to count.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters have always focused on the big picture: the GE and the Electoral Votes that get us there.

Wins in caucus states like Idaho and Montana, while interesting, do nothing in the EV.  They cannot be as important to the General Election as Ohio or Florida are for Dems.

Senator Obama has tried to game the rules by trying as hard as he can to throw his campaign agsinst any fair resolution of the Florida and Michigan votes, which he knows will be disastrous to his premature claims.

Neither Barack nor Hillary campaigned in Florida or Michigan.  But he spent big money in national media buys that got his message into Florida.

Hillary Clinton began this race with artificially inflated, huge negatives that cost her valuable time and effort and loads of money to overcome.  Obama took advantage of the savaging of Hillary by the media and added to the pile-on as he tried to capitalize.

Hillary CLinton has had huge increases in her base.  Her low-income, low-education voter base was completely unexpected and she has done an excellent job of reaching out and adding these to her Older American-Older Woman-Latino coalition.  She inspires and brings out these voters.  They are the key reason why she handed Obama his catastrophic defeats in WV and KY.  They are the key reason she should win the nomination.

The facts are she is a strong closer, her negatives have improved tremendously, and her percentages improve so much in the last 3 days of most campaigns (as in NH), that the Obama team has no idea where they are going to end up.

She has increased her donor base lately beyond anyone's expectations.  Since Penn left, she has run a model of a lean, effective, on-target campaign that has Obama followers screaming in fear for her to go away.

But no, you don't put emotional value on these numbers.  

Much.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 10:51AM | 0 recs
You haven't provided any numbers

I respect that we have a difference of opinion.  That is one of the joys of honest political debate.

Each of your points are valid opinion points, but have no statistical relevance.  For example,

"Hillary Clinton began this race with artificially inflated, huge negatives that cost her valuable time and effort and loads of money to overcome."

goes against a wide series of respected polls throughout 2007 which showed an average of a 53% lead.  State-by-state her lead, based upon 16 years of name recognition and past record, declined.  In fact, those "artifically inflated" negatives, as you call them, have continued to increase, not decrease.

I realize that "Obama took advantage of the savaging of Hillary by the media and added to the pile-on as he tried to capitalize..." has been a Clinton talking point ever since she lost and never regained front-runner status.  However, it just does not relate to any facts.  Comparison of news cycle hits is just the reverse.

While Senator Clinton has criticized Senator Obama personally, loudly and often; Senator Obama, as he did once again this weekend, has repeatedly asked voters to give Senator Clinton a pass for her mis-statements, statements which she herself has labeled unfortunate.  Obama even enlisted senior Senator Dick Durbin to repeat that message.

I do not criticize nor do I blame Senator Clinton for the words of her most rabid supporters.  I also do not blame Senator Obama for his former pastor's words, nor the words of some radical when Obama was 8-years-old.  I DO hold both candidates responsible for the words coming from their mouths.

When and if Senator Obama dares to suggest Senator Clinton is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief I will criticize him.

When and if Senator Obama introduces assassination into acceptable dialogue I will criticize him again.

You are welcome to the opinion that only the states you identify count.  I accept that as one opinion.  I prefer to believe that each of the 48 states which followed party rules count.  For those of us who live in the "latte-drinking small state" of Illinois, however, we find your opinion to be quite offensive.

by Eman 2008-05-27 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: You haven't provided any numbers

"latte-drinking small state" are your words, not mine.

Some facts:

CBS-NY Times poll, Unfavorables, Clinton:

FEb 2008  43        May 2008 37

USA Today-Gallup
Feb 2008 49         May 2008 45

Clinton's unfavorables heve been trending down, not up.  Kinda blows your points out of the water, don't it?

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 03:25PM | 0 recs
Nope, not my words

" 'latte-drinking small state' are your words, not mine."

which is why they were in quotes.  Sorry if the quotes were confusing.

And yes, you have cited two polls which show some improvement.  And we all shall have to wait and see what Friday's comments produce.

However, I guess I was unclear in my post on negatives.  Apologies for that.  I've been following the 7-year polling trend on Senator Clinton because I am particularly concerned with the effect her candidacy might have had upon down-ticket races in swing Congressional districts.  As a result, what I was referring to was this:

From CNN on March 27th of this year:

"According to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the New York senator's personal approval rating has dropped markedly, and those that hold a negative view of her have reached 48 percent -- the highest in that poll since March 2001. Just 37 percent now have a positive view of Clinton -- down from 45 percent two weeks ago."

Which correlates to my earlier posts that Senator Clinton had a clear 53% advantage, and at some point leveled-off while her negatives hit a 7-year high.

You may be right and her negatives may be trending down.  Myself, I view the CBS/NTY 37% as a one-time anomaly.  Time will tell which one of us is right.

by Eman 2008-05-27 07:27PM | 0 recs
Evidence

Chill on the demands for evidence.  You haven't exactly provided "evidence" for the "facts" you assert either.

When engaged in a political debate, unless there's a minor or peculiar point that is not well publicized, there is no need to require "evidence" for facts that are ubiquitously recognized and should be part of any political junkie's working vocabulary.

"Hillary won Pennsylvania by 9.2..."

"CITE IT!  CITE IT!"

It's getting out of control.

by BPK80 2008-05-27 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

Sorry but looking at OR/WA versus PA and pretending they're comparable would be a farce, even while that type of faux "consistency" may please you.

Oregon and Washington have been on dramatic blue trends for the past decade.  Washington isn't even a real swing state anymore.  

Your analysis rests too much on fickle state polls.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

And what are you basing your analysis on if not "fickle state polls?"

It can't possibly be trends, since in the last two elections, West Virginia and Kentucky went red by greater margins than Washington went blue.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-27 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: She can't run a campaign

Demographics, knowing which candidate appeals to whom, important trends in the state and national polling, local concerns, and county-by-county returns from Election 2000, Election 2004, and the state primary.

People who don't understand Appalachia simplify it as a racist roadblock to Obama's unmitigated success and universal acclaim.  In reality, they react coldly to cool academic tall-talkers like John Kerry and Barack Obama, while having a historic base of respect for economic populists, like Bill & Hillary Clinton who won both in their presidential bids and 2008 primaries respectively.

People who don't understand the Washington state mistakenly believe a Republican has a chance there in the fall.  Oregon may be closer, but Oregon is always closer.  I'm not worried about Oregon, Washington, and Minnesota regardless of who leads the ticket this fall.  It may have been in vogue to pretend they were swing states in 2000 and to a lesser extent 2004, but their predliections are now very clear.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 05:07PM | 0 recs
PEROT NEVER MADE A DIFFERENCE IN EITHER ELECTION!!

First off, you can take your right wing talking points, and shove them. Exit polls showed in both elections, the pro-choice pro-gay anti-NAFTA candidate took equally in '92 and '96. Winning under 50% does not automatically mean "spoiler." That depends on issues. Bill won '92 overall 43-37-19. For Bush to get to 50 percent, he would have needed 13 out of Perot's 19, or 2/3 of his vote if they ALL still woudl have voted without him, which doesn't happen. Clinton only would have needed 37 percent to get to 50 if they all still voted. Take 20 percent of Perot's voters, and they don't vote without him, Bush's need for those voters increases, Bill's decreases. Second, before perot came back, even after labor day, Bush polled exactly where he ended up: in the upper 30s. Clinton polled in the upper 50s and here's more. A Pew Study helped prove my point he took more from Clinton. This ALL makes sense when you look at Bush's approval numbers thru out 1992 No Party gets sent back to the white house with those numbers, and has never, not in 1952, 1968, 1976, 1980, nor 1992. moreover, a study from a while back shows my point, all Perot did WAS decrease Clintons margins and stop him from gaining landslide mandates.

Now on to West Virginia. West Virginia had voted Carter twice, Dukakis, and every Dem in the last 70 years of the 20th century except Stevenson '56, McGovern, and Mondale. So winning it makes sense in 1992, especially given the President's sad circumstances. In 1992, Bill won it 48.4-35.4-15.9. Do you think that Bush would have a chance in the world to catch up without Perot? Now that you've seen on the whole Perot not taking more from Bush? By your token, Clinton didn't really win NY or MA in 1992, because even tho he was far ahead of Bush, he didn't get over 50% in those states. You'd also want to read exit polls too, which aroud the nation, showed Perot taking equally.

With kentucky, Bill was already ahead 44.6-41.3-13.7. For bush to get to 50 percent, again, he needs 63 percent of Perot's vote to Clinton getting less, where as Clinton, to get to  50, only needs 39 percent of Perot votes, and these numbers assume they all still vote, which doesn't happen. Clinton was also a native southerner with charisma, Bush, not so. Bush was unpopular thruout the nation. Clinton has the EDGE. Also, the exit polls in that state show the same equal siphoning Perot does. In 1996, yea, it was closer, but the exit polls have the Perot voters going 25% for Clinton, 25% for Dole, and the rest NOT VOTING in his absence. Don't be fooled by the 47-46 Dole Clinton win there, its in the margin of error. Without Perot, in 1996, it still would have been close, and Clinton more likely to win, because of his overall political edge that year, charisma, and Dole-Gingrich's unpopularity.

And please, this idea that a win under 50% is not a win is BULLSHIT. To tell if a candidate won because of a "spoiler," look at the third party candidate ON THE ISSUES. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader are to horses of a very difference color. But they are actually closer then Perot was to any Republican, who was closer to Democrats than Republicans. Nader was a FAR LEFT idealogue. Perot was, in the words of a columnist, a "radical centrist." Nader was more likely, and DID take more from one specific candidate than Perot did. Perot's views make him taking equally or more from Clinton make sense. As does Nader's far left views taking from Al Gore, the "left candidate" also make sense. Also, in the UK, no PM has been elected with a "majority" of 50% since 1931, and not in Canada since 1984. Also, most runoff elections yield the same winner as the first round. IN South Korea, the new President won a landslide victory, tho it was with under 50% of the vote, 48 to be exact, compared to his nearest rvial's 29.. But the reason for all of these was because there were MORE THAN TWO CANDIDATES. When a third guy is on the ballot, people will vote for him. If Anderson ran just slightly stronger, and Reagan got 49.8 instead of 50.7, would his win, his landslide have been "illegitimate," or not "really a win?" Would the GOP have downplayed it, or hated themselves for it like Obamalites hate the Clintons for winning pluralities? OF COURSE NOT!

So get it in your head: PEROT WAS NEVER A FACTOR, NOR DID HE EVER "HELP" BILL CLINTON IN ANYWAY BUT TO TAKE AWAY HIS MANDATES AND SCREW HIM OVER POLITICALLY! STOP USING PEROT AS A TALKING POINT! IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT HE WON STATES THAT GORE AND KERRY NEVER COULD HAVE.

Which gets me to, you think a guy named Barack Hussein Obama, who not only is for gun control, but called gun owners, or is thought to have, bitter? You say she "has...the southern white backgroud of her husband?" WHAT ABOUT BARACK? The Brady Bill is too distant, especially compared to the "bitter" remarks. Those coupled with Obama's race will bring out the NRA in higher force than with Hillary, and many of them probably harbor racist feelings, which is actually behind their gun owning to a degree, being afraid of blacks. The states you claim he "holds" easier than Hillary, are not GOP going states anyway. He does NOT hold PA easier than Clinton. Hillary is winning in Kentucky, Ohio, Arkansas, Florida, NC, and WV ALL outside of the margin of error. Those are all new states she takes, but all except NC have precedent of voting Democrat, unlike Utah, Idaho, Kansas, nebraska, etc. which Obama is still LOSING! She's not losing MN either, she's where Obama is, and she's WINNING in New Mexico and Nevada, becuase Latinos love her, and they HATE Obama. McCain will take advantage of that. Even if Hillary doesn't win all of those states, she obviously makes them far more competitive than Obama. Their electoral votes, or ability to distract McCain outweigh Virginia and Alaska by too much.

by DiamondJay 2008-05-27 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

The problem is her purse is shallow. So if any of these states slip out or become competitive, well, she'll dry up fast.

Luckily McCain is terrible at raising money.

In any case, I still maintain Obama as the better candidate come November. While it may not look like it right now, it is because there is a lot of backlash against him by the Democratic Establishment.

Look at CA polls. He beats McCain by a wider margin than Clinton. Why? Well, the Democrats in CA have coalesced around him.

But then again roughly the same amount support Clinton. So what is the difference?

Independents and Republicans. He wins them over by wider margins than she does.

So what are we seeing in other states? The Democratic base not quite warmed up to Obama yet. Will they? If CA is any indication, they will. I think in the run up to November we will see a much stronger Obama who polls well not only with Democrats but with Independents.

So in the end, what is more likely? Obama win Democratic support in the end and bulk up Independent support? Or Clinton keep her Democratic support but win over Independent support?

All signs point to a very hard uphill battle for Clinton regarding Independents. Don't think for a second McCain wouldn't dig up old garbage the turned them off in the 90's to Democrats. On the contrary Obama will have an easier time rallying Democrats towards him in the end. Afterall, he is the Democratic candidate.

McCain may not be the favorite to win. But the shift towards the "center" for the Republicans (at least perceived) make him all the more viable.

by Zotnix 2008-05-27 07:28AM | 0 recs
she should have quite a bit

in GE funds

by sepulvedaj3 2008-05-27 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West
That's so classic. Even though the polls say otherwise, your "heart" tells you Obama is the better GE candidate. Can there possibly be a more perfect expression of the "cult of Obama"?
by ColoradoGuy 2008-05-27 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Funny, its usually the clinton supporters who have the "feeling" that Obama is doomed in the GE, because despite what the polls say he has NO chance in NC, SC, ND, NE, AK, TX, MO, CO, MT...

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-27 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

The more recent the poll, the better Obama is doing. Why? Because, as I stated before, Democrats are coalescing around him in states where primaries are long gone. See recent polls in CA, OH, PA, IA. This is a bit more than simply my "heart" telling me Obama is the better GE candidate.

Obama does better among Independents overall. That's the fact. It is also a fact Clinton does better among Democrats overall.

However, the fact is, it is easier to rally Independents around Obama than Clinton. Clinton is divisive still and don't forget her very low favorable rating. It is easier still to rally Democrats around Obama, since he will be the nominee.

So show me some logical holes in this. I'm open to real discussion. But trying to paint me as part of a "cult" does a disservice to the discourse of this forum and quite frankly you should be ashamed for your divisive rhetoric.

by Zotnix 2008-05-27 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Clinton only appears stronger because Obama has been the presumptive nominee, and thus the focus of the media's attention, for months now. If Clinton were in his position, given the incompetence with which she has campaigned, I doubt she would be faring any better.

But feel free to continue trumpeting your fantasy candidate. You've only got a couple of weeks left to do so.

by Covin 2008-05-27 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Wisconsin and Michigan are sore spots on the Democratic map this fall.  Wisconsin has been gradually trending away from us for the past two decades and if chronology is any guide, 2008 will be its tipping point.  In 2000, Gore barely won Wisconsin as Nader took a huge share of the vote there compared to other states.  In 2004, Kerry barely won Wisconsin even though the Nader effect was well diminished by then.  It's a very polarized state with very liberal liberals and very conservative conservatives, if that makes sense.  

Michigan should be polling really well for us given its economy, its Big Blue history, and a pro-Dem national mood.  The fact that it's teetering on the brink of evil (GOP) is a huge testament to how much the party screwed everything up by playing Roulette with the voters there.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

michigan is the reverse of places like Mississippi. MI is strongly a Republican state at the local level but Democratic at the national level.

well, that's the way it's been in the past.

by alex100 2008-05-27 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

That's just wishful thinking. McCain is insanely popular in NH ("insanely" because his popularity extends to many Dems) and will win easily. Wisconsin is always close and Obama's win in that primary doesn't say anything about the Fall.

When exactly is the "Obama is fairy dust and all he has to do is sprinkle some and how could anyone vote against him?" insanity going to stop? We've got to WORK, as hard as we have for anyone ever, to win this thing.

by ColoradoGuy 2008-05-27 09:07AM | 0 recs
Sample size too small...

In Wisconsin, no one but Rasmussen has shown McCain ahead since January.  And Rasmussen was the only pollster to look at Wisconsin in May at all.  I'm presuming whenever SUSA gets to polling again they'll show yet another Obama margin in the low single digits.  And Hillary has run slightly worse in most polling there.  

Michigan is similar, although it's been polled even less.  Rasmussen is the only pollster which has ever shown McCain ahead there, and his margin in their last two polls has been 1% - well within the MOE.  Again, Hillary has run slightly worse in most polling there.

McCain is probably ahead in New Hampshire though.

Anyway, this isn't a bad place for Obama to be overall.  It doesn't look like he'll have to play as much defense in Oregon, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania as Kerry did.  He's had a consistent lead in Iowa (which Bush took), and a narrower but almost as consistent lead in Colorado.  

Anyway, with a bit of consolidation work in the upper midwest, he comes to 264 electoral votes.  Then all he needs is one sizable state (Ohio or Virginia most likely), or two small states (choice of New Hampshire, New Mexico, or Nevada) to win. Hell, he could even win with one of the small states and get one of Nebraska's electoral votes. It doesn't seem like a ridiculously high bar to me.  

by telephasic 2008-05-27 07:06AM | 0 recs
I agree

advantage dems this year, advantage Obama over McSame.  Though I find it a bit sad that after all the talk of Obama as a "transformative" candidate who could bridge red and blue, we are probably looking at another 50+1 election, one in which we are not running the strongest candidate.

by activatedbybush 2008-05-27 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Jerome, may I ask that you send me an e-mail:  susanunpc at gmail dot com -- someone i know needs to get in touch with you

by susanhu 2008-05-27 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Which 2004 election are you referring to? Because the one I remember certainly included Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire amongst the battleground states.

There is not one state that Kerry won in 2004 that is a NEW battleground state this time around. However, there are many new Bush states in play, no matter who the nominee is (they are just different states).

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-27 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

this isn't evidence.

Kerry only won MI by 3, NH by just over 1 point and WI by under 1 point (11k votes).

The poll averages on pollster shows Obama winning WI by .1% and losing MI by .4%.

NH shows positive movement for both candidates. Recent polls have the gap larger then the 2004 baseline.

by alex100 2008-05-27 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

by eddieb 2008-05-27 06:15AM | 0 recs
It's almost a mantra, but this time in 1992...

... Bill Clinton polled behind Ross Perot.

If anyone should know that head-to-head D-R polls are meaningless during a hotly-contested primary season, Jerome should know.

Of course, so should Hillary and Bill Clinton, but it serves their short-term purposes to feign forgetfgulness.

by tbetz 2008-05-27 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Obama could lose.  Look at the realities:

1.  Obama loses every state in the South.

2.  Obama loses Appalachian states.

3.  Obama is weak among Latinos, who are a much larger component of SW states than Blacks are.  McCain, with his stance on undocumented immigrants'  path to citizenship, has won favor among Latinos.

4.  Most imnportant:  Kerry lost Florida by 300,000 votes.  I don't see how Obama wins those back.  Obama loses Florida.

HUUUGE Electoral vote problem, which Western states, with low EV values because of sparse populations, do not fix.

Gonna be a struggle.  Clinton is the stronger Candidate here, no doubt.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: It's a different game w/ Clinton Out

First, Hillary has to concede before any real polls can be taken.  Her loyal followers muck up the polling.  Once she recognizes reality and congratulates Obama, and then campaigns for him as promised, it becomes a whole new ball game.

Second, Obama is an excellent strategist.  How did he become the frontrunner?  He planned it, step by step.  He's got a plan for the GE, he just needs to be acknowledged as the nominee by the fools like Jerome who still think Hillary can pull this one out.

Third, Jerome, your sour grapes is tiring.  I expect more from you as a web leader for the Dems.  It is time to come to the realization that Obama is the candidate and that YOU as a web leader should be doing what you can to help him (US) win the W.H. Your "whose right" competition with Kos is very tiring and hurting our party.  It's time for you to jump on the bandwagon and start cheering Obama's chances--not damning them.  Yep, you're on record stating you don't think he can do it, so if some disaster happens in Nov you can do the "I told you so dance". But, for now, I expect more from you.

by citizensane 2008-05-27 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: It's a different game w/ Clinton Out

Yup, another Obama follower:  

" Let's stop the process now!!  Obama is clearly ahead!!"

You guys never give up.  And neither will we.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: It's a different game w/ Clinton Out

David Axelrod is an excellent strategist. He started with John Edwards in 04, Devall Patrick in 06, and now Obama.  He was honing HIS message, and waiting for the right candidate/blank slate to shape to his strategy.  Please don't pretend that Obama is something other than an empty shirt that Axelrod made look great.

by nyarch 2008-05-27 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: It's a different game w/ Clinton Out

Please understand a couple of things -

1.  Obama cannot win New Hampshire, Ohio, West Virginia, and maybe even Pennsylvania.  Not to mention Arkansas, my native state.  Clinton wins those hands down.  As her campaign says, delegate math may be tricky, but electoral math is not.  Obama cannot win in the GE.

2.  There are many Clinton supporters who will not vote for Obama because he's sexist, he's a blank slate with many ties to neocons, he has practiced the worst kind of race baiting and has purposefully divided the Democratic Party for his own gain, and on and on.

by SandyS 2008-05-27 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: It's a different game w/ Clinton Out

Well, you've earned your McCain points for today.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-27 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: It's a different game w/ Clinton Out

2.  There are many Clinton supporters who will not vote for Obama because he's sexist, he's a blank slate with many ties to neocons, he has practiced the worst kind of race baiting and has purposefully divided the Democratic Party for his own gain, and on and on.

What ties to neo-cons are those?  Care to enlighten me?  As I remember, it was Clinton who voted for the AUMF, not Obama.  In fact he made a speech taking the opposite position of Clinton.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-27 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: It's a different game w/ Clinton Out

"Third, Jerome, your sour grapes is tiring.  I expect more from you as a web leader for the Dems.  It is time to come to the realization that Obama is the candidate and that YOU as a web leader should be doing what you can to help him (US) win the W.H. Your "whose right" competition with Kos is very tiring and hurting our party.  It's time for you to jump on the bandwagon and start cheering Obama's chances--not damning them.  Yep, you're on record stating you don't think he can do it, so if some disaster happens in Nov you can do the "I told you so dance". But, for now, I expect more from you."

Amen.

I know hurt feelings can be rough, be it ain't nearly as bad as 4 more years of neocon rule.

The Democrats are on the verge of nominating the first African-American candidate to ever be on a national ticket in the United States.  This is something that should make us all proud as Democrats.  Of course he faces an uphill climb, but it is one he can handle.

Instead of legitimizing the views of white appalachian voters who don't want to vote for a black man in hopes of bolstering a candidate who has squandered every foreseeable advantage a candidate could have out of a stubborn and unresponsive sense of entitlement, We should be working to show them that their views are outdated, and Obama will be the President of all Americans.

by ArkansasLib 2008-05-27 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Yes Obama could lose. Point is, he's beating Hillary Clinton in the Primary.

If she can't beat Obama, how could she beat McCain?

She can't manage her campaign finances in any way shape or form and has shown this before when she wasted tens of millions of dollars running for the NY Senate when she was virtually unopposed.

You think she could manage the general election campaign in the fall? Please. :)

1. Do you know that Obama loses every state in the South for certain? Have we voted yet? heh.

He ran up some pretty hefty margins against Hillary in the primaries in the South so......

2. Obama is winning Pennsylvania and Ohio according to the polls. And Virginia. Ok, so he loses Kentucky and West Virginia. He makes up for that in Colorado and New Mexico.

And he has a shot in Arizona with Governor Napolitano ramping up the state machine for him.

3. Actually he's not as weak among Latino's as he was a few months ago. He has been gaining strength very rapidly.

As for McCain, the stance of the republican party as a whole will dent his appeal with regard to immigration.

4. Obama is only down 5pts in Florida in the latest polls. That's pretty damn close for someone who didn't even campaign in Florida much yet.

And last, what you're seeing mostly today imo is the effect of Clinton supporters not wanting to concede defeat and holding on doggedly with their candidate. When she gets out of the race, hopefully next week, her supporters will rally around Obama and he should see a big bump in his polling, putting many states in play, or switching many states to him.

There's plenty of time.

by Yalin 2008-05-27 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

"And he has a shot in Arizona with Governor Napolitano ramping up the state machine for him."

When you start talking about winning John McCain's home state, you know you've had one too many to drink.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Al Gore couldn't carry Tennessee, and that is one large reason he lost in 2000, Florida notwithstanding.

There is historical precedent. Keep this in mind as well. John McCain couldn't break 50% in his own home state.

He only garnered 47% of the vote. By contrast, Clinton was in the high 50% range in NY and Obama was in the 60s in Illinois.

Couple that with his fundraising weakness in Arizona just this past weekend (they had to seriously downsize the event), and yes, I do think Arizona is in play.

by Yalin 2008-05-27 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Of the four SW states, Arizona has always had the biggest pro-GOP slant.  The fact that it's the Republican candidate's home state strongly militates against its blueness in 2008.  

It will however, be ripe for the plucking in 2012 and beyond.  The trend there is for Dems.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

You're probably right. On the other hand, John McCain only pulled in 47% of the Republican vote in his own state.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/state/#val=AZ

He also had to scale back a fundraiser because he couldn't sell the tickets to his fellow Arizonans.
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stori es/2008/05/19/daily77.html?jst=b_ln_hl
(and this is being publicized. I can actually hear this story being reported right now on NPR from a coworker's office).

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-27 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West
If she can't beat Obama, how could she beat McCain?
To be fair, McCain is looking like a pretty bad campaigner and fundraiser so far. He didn't win the nomination because Republicans liked him, he won because fewer of them hated him. When Bill was in office, and up well into W's second term, I thought that Hillary would have an easy time winning the Democratic primary if she were to run, and could not possibly win the general. This election, though, I feel like the Republican brand is so weak that even Hillary has a good chance against McCain in the general.
by beowabbit 2008-05-27 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Quite possible given the rationale. That said, given that Hillary has lost to Obama, I think it's fair to say that Obama is the stronger candidate between the two.

That was my only point. :)

by Yalin 2008-05-27 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

No, she has not lost to Obama yet.

Once again, Obama supporters prove themselves premature prognosticators!

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Ok, she cannot win more pledged delegates than he has and he is well ahead of her in super delegates with new ones coming out for him every day. He will win Montana and South Dakota and apparently he's looking like he could win Puerto Rico too.

For anyone interested in looking at the math of the situation and realistically assessing the state of the race, there is only one conclusion.

It's over.

by Yalin 2008-05-27 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

I agree that general election polls will be worth alot more after Clinton endorses Obama, and more still after the conventions.  This post from Jerome is relatively sensible, however, so I think we should cut him some slack and encourage the transition in the tone of his posts.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-05-27 07:22AM | 0 recs
Some slack you say?

The problem is we have been waiting and waiting and waiting and cutting and cutting the slack into tiny pieces while Jerome continues to float his boat down Denile. He like the Clintons have put the goal post on a Humvee with no breaks.

by eddieb 2008-05-27 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-27 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

"you act like the road to the White House only goes through two of the most racist states."

can you be much more offensive?

Aside from that, yes, you can go and check the history of Dems winning KY and WV, and whether they predict the winner.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-27 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

I agree that Obama is unlikely to win those states. And one reason is the well-documented racial bias of them.  But I don't think HRC would do well either; she hasn't faced much in the way of vetting. On the other hand, Obama's vetting has gotten him far more ready for the GE.  Furthermore, the exit polls showed that there were a fair number of Clinton voters who preferred McCain.

Clinton faces real problems in other states where Obama is doing just fine and where he has lots of potential. In a real world race, post nomination, with a good running mate, he will be in strong shape.

And he has the best ground game ever.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-27 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

And he has the best ground game ever.

But there are no caucuses in the GE.

by gaf 2008-05-27 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

And Clinton wont be running against "Uncomitted" if she's the nominee.

Looks like they both have their flaws.

by Massadonious 2008-05-27 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Field work wins elections, period.

Karl Rove got the gay marriage initiatives on state ballots to crank up turnout. But that's a gun with only one bullet in it.  The Republican base is demoralized, doesn't like McCain.

Obama, meanwhile, is already working on voter identification and voter registration.  

by politicsmatters 2008-05-27 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

"And one reason is the well-documented racial bias of them."

Crude and imprecise.  There's racism all over this country; it's no worse in West Virginia or Kentucky as it is in Philadelphia or Los Angeles any other major "diverse" city, where neighborhoods and socializing are completely divided along ethnic and racial lines.  There's also a lot of racism in Aryan bastions like Minnesota & Oregon, where "highminded" whites like to stroke their own feathers and pretend they are living icons of equality by pretending to be so above racism, when they have absolutely no firsthand experience understanding diversity whatsoever.  

Appalachia is distrustful of seemingly pompous urban fops who come into the region (or ignore it outright) acting like they're smarter or more enlightened than everyone.  Despite West Virginia's incredibly Democratic history, it soundly rejected John Kerry.  Ditto for Kentucky.  And here's a hint: it wasn't because of Kerry's race.  

The last candidate for PA governor was Black and he did well in the Appalachian regions around Allegheney county.  It's because he was an entirely different type of man than Barack Obama.  He was more commanding in presence and had more machismo for lack of a better word.  

So stop blaming everything on racism.  Whether he was Black, White, Hispanic, or Asian, a guy with Barack Obama's personality isn't going to resonate well in PA, Ohio, WV, KY, TN, Eastern Maryland, etc.  It's the cooly academic style, comments like "cling to guns," and the lack of substance in his speeches.  Hope & change is the oldest line in the book and it doesn't sell well with these cynical voters.        

by BPK80 2008-05-27 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

I'm certainly not blaming everything on racism. It's far more complicated.

But progressives should honestly acknowledge when there is racial distrust.  How else can you fight it or deal with it?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-27 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Well I'm all in favor of race-consciousness (the only way to solve a problem is to acknowledge it) but your original comments had nothing to do with that.  You referred to KY and WV as two of the most "racist" states in the country and that's simply not true.  Even in this primary, the clearest example of racial block voting was in both North Carolina and Indiana, where AA's voted against a white candidate on account of race by over a 9 to 1 ratio.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Yeah and black people NEVER vote for the white candidate because of race too.

by wengler 2008-05-27 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Are you defending anti-white racism?

by BPK80 2008-05-27 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Can you go back and show me the history of an African American Democrat winning the GE through WV and KY?

Didn't think so. This year is full of firsts.

by grass 2008-05-27 06:53AM | 0 recs
Sample size

As someone that partakes in a fair of sabermetrics in baseball -

The constant refrain is "sample size"... The idea being that we need a meaningful sample to extrapolate any sort of metric or theory.

That just doesn't work here.

For one thing - you can toss out any elections prior to the Dixiecrat schism.   This was a major Democratic-Republican realignment - so comparing state behavior prior to the schism is comparing apples to oranges.

The whole "state X" predicts the winner is just lazy punditry at this point.

There may well end up being a crucial (or two or three crucial) - but we simply aren't going to know that in May.

by zonk 2008-05-27 06:54AM | 0 recs
Saying that is only offensive...

... when you don't use it to make your own argument?

You never did answer that question.

by tbetz 2008-05-27 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Also check and let me know how a democrat can win without overwhelming African-American support in states like Ohio, PA, and Michigan. I'm just curious .

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-27 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Check the last time a democrat won ANYWHERE without winning women.  Women make up the majority of the electorate, the majority of voters, and when they go for democrats, democrats win.  You are worried about depressed AA turnout, fine. I'm worried about a nation of angry women who are pissed as hell that Hillary got Sh*t on by just about every man involved in this process at one point or another.  Not to mention being completely ignored as the powerful voting block every time there is a discussion of the ALL IMPORTANT AA vote.  Both groups are important, one is essential.

by nyarch 2008-05-27 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Yes, the AA group is the essential group.  There is no nation of angry women you are  alluding to, but prove me wrong.

by susu1969 2008-05-27 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Clinton is so popular in Pennsylvania at this point she could lose Philadelphia county and still win the state.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Actually you are wrong. If there is depressed black turnout in PA she loses. In a GE matchup with John McCain he runs even with her in the places that she won in the primary it is only because of Philly that she swamps him giving her a larger lead.  

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-27 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Wrong.  Philly gives her a big advantage, but she doesn't need to rely on it to win Pennsylvania.  Hillary's base of support here is in the heavily populated Northeast part of the state, which is closer to New York City than Philadelphia.

by BPK80 2008-05-27 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

I don't get the "check the history of Dems..." talking point. Because according to that same history, no woman ever won the presidency and sure as hell no black man ever won it either.

by lizardbox 2008-05-27 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

West Virginia is a swing state this year.  History means nothing as far as Kentucky is concerned.  There is no chance whatsoever that Kentucky will be the state which puts the Democratic candidate over 270 electoral votes.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-05-27 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West


Did you just refer to WV and Kentucky as "traditional battleground states?"

My God, were you even alive during Election 2000?  West Virginia was a huge swing state polled every week.  Same story in 2004 until it became obvious that a spidery coastal Cicero like Kerry wasn't able to connect with the voters.

West Virginia voted for Dukakis.  Does that tell you anything about the history of the state?

"I mean come on now Jerome, you act like the road to the White House only goes through two of the most racist states."

Ridiculous.  You proved just above that you don't know anything about West Virginia and yet you throw around these insults.

by BPK80 2008-05-27 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Um when 20% say they voted against Barack Obama because he is black tells me everything I need to know. Those are just the folks that openly admitted it to complete strangers.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-27 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Nonsense.  I love the contingent of self-appointed white vigilantes against "all things racist!" that rears its head every day in the Obama camp of supporters.

Not only are you distorting a figure from exit polling with a huge margin of error, but you conveniently neglect to acknowledge the racist block-voting against a white woman that occurred in North Carolina.  

And FWIW, the exit polls from KY and WV showed no stastistically significant divergence in what you call the "racist" vote from other recent states.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

by My Ob 2008-05-27 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

This is because if Obama is in the lead the polls are always on MSNBC/CNN. But in states that Hillary is likely to win Ohio/Florida/WV/KY/AK they never appear...

by Jaz 2008-05-27 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

No, its because most people are non-biased enough to not look at these numbers in a vacuum.  The fact is that for at least 2 months this campaign has effectively been McCain vs. Obama and Clinton vs. Obama (who is aiming his guns at McCain).  Clinton has been coasting basically unopposed for a few months now.  I bet if they polled Edwards vs. McCain, John would be up by about 13 points due to the fact that people hate the Republican party right now and Edwards has name ID but yet none of the negatives that come with being a candidate with another candidate aiming you at every day.

by GobBluth 2008-05-27 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

No, for at least 2 months it's been Clinton, the stronger candidate, against Olbermann, Russert, Stephanopoulos, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and every stupid beltway pundit out there.

She's beaten Obama soundly for the last 2 months, but lost the SD battles as they abandon her because they can see who the press favors.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

by My Ob 2008-05-27 06:18AM | 0 recs
Is this snark?

Serious question.

by Builderman 2008-05-27 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this snark?

Seriously.  Is it?  

by kellogg 2008-05-27 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this snark?

Totally seriously. It it?

by JoeCoaster 2008-05-27 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

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

In fact, the race had for all intents and purposes ended weeks earlier, on April 7 in New York, when Mr. Brown made something of a last stand. It was ultimately a bust: He came in third, behind Mr. Clinton and the second-place finisher, Senator Paul E. Tsongas of Massachusetts, who had suspended his campaign weeks earlier.

That night, George Stephanopoulos, who was then a top aide to Mr. Clinton, declared that it was "mathematically impossible for Brown to get the nomination" -- the start of a campaign to declare Mr. Clinton the presumed nominee, even as several other major primaries loomed.

"So, lightning would have to strike," Mr. Stephanopoulos, now with ABC News, said at the time, a phrase he repeated last week to describe Mrs. Clinton's chances against Mr. Obama.

Mr. Clinton soon made a victorious visit to Capitol Hill, where he began trying to rally to his side the party leaders with automatic convention seats known as superdelegates.

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

by politicsmatters 2008-05-27 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

I don't even bother anymore with these front-page posts anymore.

It's nothing but doomsaying and negativity toward Obama, masquerading as objective analysis.


"This is very, very bad news for Obama..."

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-27 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

by Jaz 2008-05-27 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

What reasons do you have for this working in Nevada versus Colorado and New Mexico? What about their populations and politics cause you to make this claim?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-27 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Puerto Ricans make up a strong electoral bloc in Florida?

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

by ipsos 2008-05-27 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

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

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

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

by really not a troll 2008-05-27 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Please.

Clinton has been savaged by the media far more than Obama has.  JUst look at this past RFK weekend, and Olbermann's 11-minute vicious, maddog rant about her Friday.  Show me ONE similar rant against Obama?  

Aside from the REv Wright pile-on, there has been no concerted effort to "get" Obama like there is against Clinton every night on every channel in cable news.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

She's savaged more because to many she's the less desireable candidate.  If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.  Obama is getting hit by her and by McSame.  So, he's running a 2 front campaign war.  

She is a good candidate but she is losing (has lost).  It is time for her to do the loyal Dem thing and concede, congratulate Obama, and campaign for him.  She WILL, if she wants a future.  What will you do, join her or stay home?

by citizensane 2008-05-27 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

I will wait until the last primary is over, until what I consider a fair decision is reached on the votes cast in Florida and Michigan, until the last Superdelegate declares.  Even then I might wait til the Convention.

Then I will weigh my options.

I have to tell you Obama's campaign will have a hard time winning my vote, after the shameful way they've behaved.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Sure, stop your feet cross your arms and refuse to help out the party.  When your health premiums go up 300%, your job gets outsourced to SriLanka, and you can't afford the gasoline,  tell it to prez McSame.  If you don't change your tune you will get what you hope for (and yes, it sounds as though you'd rather have McSame if Hillary doesn't get the nod). How sad!  It's great to be loyal, but at some point you have to accept reality.  It is time to start thinking in that direction.  I am sorry.  I too was a Clinton supporter (early voted for her in CA).  But I recognize what many of you will have to come to terms with the next 30 days.  It ain't gonna be Hillary.  As much as you want it, it ain't gonna happen.  So, would you rather have McSame?  No?  Then, rather than rely upon the Obama bloggers here on what he's about, go to his website.  (That's what I did). I googled his speeches.  I let Obama speak to me about himself.  I didn't get turned off.  Rather, I got excited.  That can happen to you IF YOU OPEN YOUR MIND and truly want to take back the W.H. in 08.  Otherwise, you can sulk and talk about 2012. How sad!

by citizensane 2008-05-27 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

I have my MIND OPEN, sane.

The reality is that, like Jerome began saying, Hillary is the stronger GE candidate.

Open your mind, put down that Obama Kool-Aid, and you'll agree.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

She's savaged more because to many she's the less desireable candidate

to whom?  The 17 million voters who support don't think so.

The MSM shouldn't "savaging" anyone based on their own hatred.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-27 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

there's been no post-RFK polling yet. Any effect that might have on polls is irrelevant until we have some information to go with it.

by really not a troll 2008-05-27 08:00AM | 0 recs
Your argument doesn't stand up to facts

Senator Obama was personally attacked through guilt by association for 36 news cycles of 24/7 bashing of three words of his former pastor.

Hillary Clinton publicly pushed this attack several times, while also trying on multiple occasions to tie Senator Obama to Resko (still no story) and the words of Bill Ayars when Obama was what, 8 years old?

Hillary's introduction of assassination into the Presidential debate lasted through 3 news cycles on a holiday weekend, and her hubby and fans have become unglued because she is picked-upon?

She couldn't have had an easier skate on this last one if she had planned it...  hmmm, maybe she did.

by Eman 2008-05-27 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Your argument doesn't stand up to facts

Eman, you don't watch much TV, do you.

EVERY day the lead is "Why is Hillary Hurting Her Party's Chances by Hanging On??" " Hillary: Selfishness, Ambition, Greed:  You Decide"    "Where Does Hillary Go From Losing her Last Chance??"  "Hillary is Finished.  What Should Obama Offer Her?" and on and on and on..

Since before Iowa.  DO you remember the media's gleeful New Hampshire Primary Weekend Hillary mash-up?  I do.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Your argument doesn't stand up to facts

Oh, but I do.

I see Bill trying to blame this all on some plot orchestrated by Senator Obama.

I don't hold Senator Obama responsible for the press any more than I hold Senator Clinton responsible for the press.

I do hold each of them (and their spouses) for the words coming out of their own mouths.

I do remember the 36 news cycles, encouraged by Senator Clinton, which attempted to try Senator Obama through association.

I notice that Hillary, Bill, and some of her supporters have been screaming for two days that the press is crucifying her over her assassination remark.

3 news cycles and they are screaming.  Give it 36 news cycles and see how it feels.

When she is leaving IS a legitimate question, and in no way is it a personal attack.

The press continues to be overly generous with things like the Bosnia "over-tired misstatements" and the revision of history from Friday.

They could have continued the personal attacks like the ones Senator Clinton urged against Senator Obama ("What about Rezko? What about Ayars?), but following Senator Obama's urging each time, they backed-off.

by Eman 2008-05-27 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Your argument doesn't stand up to facts

They are just biding their time.

Today Michelle Malkin and Jake Tapper and David Wright began the coverage on the RNC's new offensive:  Obama the "Gaffe Machine".

Did you know that?  Let the fun begin.

Hillary is stronger in this arena, no question.  Obama would have long ago folded if he had been put thru half of what Hillary has thrived under.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Your argument doesn't stand up to facts

I don't agree that Hillary is the better general election candidate, but maybe you're right.  Obviously some people like her better than Obama and I don't doubt that she makes some states competitive that he doesn't.  

But here's the thing: So what?  She has lost the nomination.  I don't understand what purpose is being served by Hillary supporters griping about Obama being a bad candidate or behaving like a jerk during the campaign.  he is our nominee.  Let's help him win.

by snaktime 2008-05-27 11:34AM | 0 recs
Why is Clinton still strong in the GE?

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

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

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

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

by grass 2008-05-27 06:48AM | 0 recs
Not Paying Attention
Show me recent polls
With Barr v Dem v McCain
I'll Show You Slam Dunk
by Southjaw 2008-05-27 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

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

by Hammy 2008-05-27 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

This is the point we Clinton supporters have been making all along:  As soon as Precious faces the music and gets beaten up by the other side, his numbers drop at or below Hillary Clinton's, who is a far tougher and more sympathetic figure.

She is McCain's worst nightmare.  When she wins the nomination, he will be facing a landslide of 1964 proportions because she will take away his ability to attract independents, swing voters, and Latinos.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

But his numbers haven't dropped among independents, the group McCain is going after, but Clinton Supporters. It's a manufactured electability argument.

by grass 2008-05-27 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

it isn't "manufactured" if that base sits out this election.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-27 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

it is if that's what she wants.

by grass 2008-05-27 12:48PM | 0 recs
'As soon as Precious faces the music...'

And Clinton fans complain about how picked-on poor Hillary is.  Got it.

Poor Bill whines that poor picked-on Hillary doesn't  "get the respect she deserved..."

If we all begin calling her "Precious" will that do it?  Or will it be considered sexist?

by Eman 2008-05-27 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: 'As soon as Precious faces the music...'

You've been calling her much worse.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 09:07AM | 0 recs
Quit painting ME with YOUR brush

I'd like to but I don't.

The question was, if "Precious" is a word you find acceptable to use for a sitting Senator, do you object to us calling your leader "Precious," or do you find it offensive?

A simple yes or no would be more clear than an illogical appeal.

by Eman 2008-05-27 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Quit painting ME with YOUR brush

A simple yes or no is what inquisitors asked for, too.  Get real.

Hillary has been called a racist, a liar, a panderer, and many other insults far worse than Precious.  And they've been repeated on this blog and in many others countless times.

Now, you claim to have NEVER called Hillary Clinton anything disrespectful, and if true, I commend you.

But I doubt it.  You say you'd "like to".  Go ahead, why not.  It's in your heart anyway.  Get that BRUSH out.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

"Precious" has been getting hit constantly for the past two months, yet his favorability ratings remain stronger than Hillary's, he still polls slightly better than she does nationally.

That said, I do think that Clinton is slightly more electable in the general, so I won't argue that point, except that I think Obama is also very electable and the strength of his position will become apparent when Hillary drops out and endorses OBama. Also, the nomination process isn't designed solely to coronate the most electable candidate: Obama accumulated his pledged delegate lead by wining elections - a lot of Democrats want him to President, for a variety of good reasons.

by Hammy 2008-05-27 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

by Headlight 2008-05-27 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

by scytherius 2008-05-27 06:57AM | 0 recs
West AND North

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

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

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

by zonk 2008-05-27 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West
The upshot is, Hillary and Bill Clinton can secure millions upon millions of votes for Democrats in November by taking the right stance after Obama secures the nomination.  A couple of sincere speeches, and tireless campaigning will help Obama win 40+ states in the GE.
    I believe that they will.  I have faith in them.
by haremoor 2008-05-27 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

The upshot is that Obama can secure tens of millions of votes for Democrats by helping Hillary after she wins the nomination.

I believe he will.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

I'm sure he will.

IF she wins.

by haremoor 2008-05-27 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Get real

It is this thinking that is hurting the Dem party. The reality whether you want to believe it or not, is that Obama is winning (has won) the nomination.  It is time for you to accept that. Or, are you waiting for Hillary to announce an independent run for Prez?  

Jerome with these posts doesn't help either.  Obama will do great in the G.E.  He's done well all along-- after all he beat the heir-apparent, Hillary.  WHo would have thought?  

Denial, anger, bargaining, acceptance.  You can do it!

by citizensane 2008-05-27 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Get real

Precisely the kind of condescending, patronizing tone that has won Obama and his supporters so much love among other Democrats.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 09:11AM | 0 recs
Racism is not a legitimate basis to back Hillary

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

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

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

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

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-05-27 07:01AM | 0 recs
Kentucky is not a battleground

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

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

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

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

by cos 2008-05-27 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky is not a battleground

While I mostly agree with you...I do think Clinton could have won WV. Remember the Democratic party is still pretty strong in WV. KY is doubtful, polls out in May are dubious, but hey it's all we have to speculate about right now haha.

by Airb330 2008-05-27 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky is not a battleground

We'll never find out, but I had mentally written off WV well before this year's primaries.  I think the trend was unmistakable.  Bush beat Gore by 6 and a half points in WV in 2000, and then beat Kerry by 13 points there in 2004.  No state that grew Bush's lead that dramatically from 2000 to 2004 was going to be a swing state this year, IMO - unless we have a landslide election where the Democrat gets 400+ and WV doesn't matter.

You're right that their Democratic party is very strong at the state level.  The same is true in Kentucky.  But when it comes to voting for president, WV is now a red state.

I think we can reverse the trend, and a strong win this year could be part of making that happen, but we were never going to win WV this year.

by cos 2008-05-27 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

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

by NeverNude 2008-05-27 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Jerome,

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

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

by Airb330 2008-05-27 07:04AM | 0 recs
Again. If May polling was

meaningful John Kerry would be President.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-27 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Again. If May polling was

well that does not bode well for Obama since he is winning general election match ups.

by nyarch 2008-05-27 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Again. If May polling was

It doesn't bode well or badly. It's not meaningful right now.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-27 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Again. If May polling was

I'm simply saying that for every Obama supporter saying Hillary positive polls don't count for anything there are 100 more Obama supporters citing polls to make arguments about VA and CO and several other states.  Either polls matter or they don't. But there are a hell of a lot of people on here wanting it both ways.

by nyarch 2008-05-27 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Again. If May polling was

Well I'm not one of them so I can't speak to that. But I can speak to his trend of increasing leads and decreasing deficits. That bodes well.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-27 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Again. If May polling was

That is a point I can agree with, would you also agree that the overall trends are positive in her direction as well? Except of course for the democratic nomination.

by nyarch 2008-05-27 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Again. If May polling was

Her GE trends seem positive. Certainly.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-27 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Again. If May polling was

Thanks for being reasonable. We seem to be getting heated these days.

by nyarch 2008-05-27 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Again. If May polling was

That's what happens, I think, when there are so few policy differences between candidates. It turns personal because there's no other outlet. We can only beat the mandate vs. no mandate horse for so long. It is a sign of an energized electorate though!

by heresjohnny 2008-05-27 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

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

by comotion 2008-05-27 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

by Spanky 2008-05-27 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

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

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

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

by LordMike 2008-05-27 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Most Recent EV Tally -

At Electoral-Vote.Com   

Electoral Votes: Clinton 327     McCain 194     Ties 17

Electoral Votes: Obama 266     McCain 248     Ties 24

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Ob ama/Maps/May27.html

This is one of Obama's best weeks; however, he is still below 270.
In the past few weeks he has been below 250.
He has consistently trailed HRC by 50 to 60 EVs.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-27 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Most Recent EV Tally -

Whoopee!  Not only has Hillary not been the target of the right wing juggernaut, she is being actively assisted by them... which should tell you what they think of her general election chances.

So, that number is hardly an accurate reflection of the landscape... plus, there's some clever cherry-picking going on there...

by LordMike 2008-05-27 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

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

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

by catilinus 2008-05-27 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: My Sentiments, Exactly

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

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

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

by johnnygunn 2008-05-27 07:13AM | 0 recs
Up is Down...

Soooo the 'weakest' candidate won the primary? Polling strength is NOT the only measure of a candidate. If it WAS Hillary would have WON right?

by JoeCoaster 2008-05-27 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: My Sentiments, Exactly

Stop with the concern.  Obama will win big in the electoral college.

The only reason Clinton is polling better in certain states is because Democrats don't fully back Obama.  I have no doubt that once he officially becomes our nominee he will get the required 85%ish of Democratic votes.  Right now he's getting somewhere around 70-75%.

by RussTC3 2008-05-27 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: it's too late for obama to win latinos

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

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

by latina 2008-05-27 07:14AM | 0 recs
You're wrong

I'm not a Latino and you are wrong.  Identifying with an ethnic group does not give you magical insight.  Obama is much much stronger in the Southwest than HRC is and he's stronger than McCain as well.  

by PantsB 2008-05-27 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: it's too late for obama to win latinos

I'm sorry that Obama's message hasn't reached your family yet.  Perhaps an open mind will help?  He is starting an outreach and it is beginning to work.  I'm seeing it in my district with Latinos.  THey do know of him and many are starting to like his message.  When it's him vs. Clinton, she wins, but Obama vs. McSame it's way up for Obama!  SO, have faith.  He'll do well.  I predict your family will vote for him in the G.E.!

by citizensane 2008-05-27 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: it's too late for obama to win latinos

what are you saying?  which black leaders have been terrible to Latinos? Please be more specific Latina.

by susu1969 2008-05-27 09:13AM | 0 recs
You're right

Latina, 100% correct.

Obama has a huuge and growing problem in the Latin community, where Hillary has tremendous strength.

Bush claimed his GOP took 44% of the Latino vote in 2004, and if Obama is the candidate, I have a feeling McCain will win a majority.  Latinos are only the largest minority in America, and just the future of the Democratic Party, that's all.

NcCain went against the screams of dismay from his party and pushed forward legislation to help Latinos and their families achieve a path to citizenship.

That made a huge impact, has not and will not be forgotten.  I see trouble for Dems in the SW with Obama, like Jerome says.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

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

by nogo postal 2008-05-27 07:21AM | 0 recs
More bad polls for Obama today

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

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

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

by katmandu1 2008-05-27 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: More bad polls for Obama today

It is too bad Hillary can't win the nomination.  She doomed us to losing in the GE.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-27 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: More bad polls for Obama today

THis year is not the typical election year: both a woman and an African American were headliners. Record donations were collected -- from the little people.  WHy look to past elections for how this year will turn out.  I predicts it will have a few surprises.  Starting with Obama as the Dem nominee.  That was not expected, but it happened.  It will happen in the G.E. too.  Have a little faith. I know it is hard when your candidate didn't make the grade, but that is the way it is.  SOmeone wins, someone loses. ANd the best thing for Dems all around is to make sure that it's a Dem in the W.H.  

It is time for us to heal. Accept that Obama is our candidate and start talking him up to be the winner of the G.E.  Having a tantrum because Hillary didn't get the nomination isn't going to help us in Nov.  This is what it is.  Either you want a Dem in the W.H. or you don't because it's not Hillary.  Is that really what you are saying?

by citizensane 2008-05-27 07:28AM | 0 recs
I agree

I think that this process will be easier if the candidates come together.  That is up to Clinton and Obama.  She wants things that he doesn't want to give her, and vice versa.

by activatedbybush 2008-05-27 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-27 07:23AM | 0 recs
You don't address the context of current polling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by sasatlanta 2008-05-27 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't address the context of current polli

1.  The RFK attack this weekend according to John Harris of POLITICO had Obama's spokesman among the first to jump on board the pile-on.

2.  The latest Gallup numbers are 28% of Hillary supporters would vote for McCain if Obama wins, while 19% of Obamas would vote for McCain if Hillary wins.  But the two coalitions are not the same, (i.e. these are not the same Dems!) so this poll is very suspect.  I don' t think anyone will know until it's too late.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't address the context of current polli

1)  While I wouldn't consider Bill Burton's words a pile-on, even if you do, this whole issue occurred after Hillary's remarkable polling results of the last few weeks.  It doesn't have anything to do with her recent successes.

2)  You are correct.  There is no way to know for sure how polling will change until there is actually a nominee, and therefore, you can't know how the other candidate might have done.  

However, I do think there is some interesting debating to do from both sides of what they think might happen.  Obama supporters would probably say that Hillary voters will come back from 26% to McCain to 15% for McCain or something like that, and Obama would pull ahead several points.  

They might also say that if Hillary wins though Super Delegates, her 19% would increase to 25% and her numbers would come way down.

Some might be more extreme, but these numbers seem reasonable to me.

A Hillary supporter would argue something different.  I would like to know what they would say.

by sasatlanta 2008-05-27 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't address the c

That all sounds plausible. I don't pretend to know what's in the future, and think there is a slim chance still that Clinton gets the nomination, not that I expect it; and yea, a Clinton/Obama ticket would be the strongest, as for the reverse, I don't think so.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-27 12:59PM | 0 recs
Thanks for responding!

I was pushing for Hillary as VP before this weekend.  I was sure her numbers would some down and reduce the pressure on this after the RFK comments, but they haven't.

This tells me that if she wants VP, I still think Obama has to take her.  Her supporters are just not giving her up, and I am nervous that he can't afford to lose them.

by sasatlanta 2008-05-27 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

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

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

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

by souvarine 2008-05-27 07:29AM | 0 recs
Any other GOP Talking Points you care

to publish, Jerome?

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

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

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

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

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

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-27 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

by GingertheDem 2008-05-27 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Obama is NOT the nominee.

This has been a public-service message to all Obama supporters, reminding you all the contest is not yet over.  

Thank you.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: obama lost latinos in his own district

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

by latina 2008-05-27 07:34AM | 0 recs
I see Obama exposed in NJ as well

Though he should take it.  In any case, he's doing the right thing as the nominee -- reaching out to the constitutents where he thinks he can make gains - women and SW US voters (Latino and Anglo).   The appalachian cause is probably a lost one as the terrain favors the thugs anyway.

by activatedbybush 2008-05-27 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: obama lost latinos in his own district

Excellent, heartfelt post, Latina.  I like your style.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 11:40AM | 0 recs
Another Obama gaffe

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

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

by katmandu1 2008-05-27 07:35AM | 0 recs
I tried to watch

but my software blocks white supremacist hate-cites.

by JJE 2008-05-27 07:39AM | 0 recs
NoQuarter? Really?

I'm sorry, but I don't feel like getting dumber.

by Massadonious 2008-05-27 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Obama swing state map:

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

by BPK80 2008-05-27 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Given that the last survey USA poll has Obama up 9 on McCain in Ohio, that should at least be upgraded to a toss up. Additionally, I would not consider eitehr district in Maine as competitive yet. In Nebraska, Obama will probably put the Omaha district in play but the Lincoln District should be considered to favor McCain.

by keithdarlingbrekhus 2008-05-27 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

The SUSA poll had no LV screen, low sample size, high MoE, and had what can only be generously described as a... serious blunder in its numbers for Southeast Ohio that threw off the entire poll.  

SUSA was great this primary cycle (in its final calls for the state, but still very erratic in those leading up to it), but in years gone past, they have a tendency to produce very wild numbers.  Not long ago, it was considered "down there" with ARG.  

In all seriousness, the Quinnipiac Ohio poll from the day preceding the SUSA's is much more telling.  And accurate.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Quinnipac had Obama down 4, Rasmussen had Obama down 1 and Survey USA had Obama up 9.

You average all three out and Obama leads...if you just take Rasmussen and Quinnipac he is down 2.5. Still close to a toss up.

by keithdarlingbrekhus 2008-05-27 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Ick.

Ohio.

Election 2004.  

I don't see it happening in Ohio (2008).  It's hard for me to imagine how Obama could outperform Kerry there.  Ohio was a big mess even then in terms of economy and the state GOP being a disaster.  Still, they wouldn't vote for Kerry regardless of how much he spent there, visited the state, etc.  I don't think Obama can convincingly modify his image to appeal to the kinds of voters he'll need to carry Ohio.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

by jarhead5536 2008-05-27 07:46AM | 0 recs
Rural whites in Appalachia

Let's be sure we aren't casting too broad a brush here...

Obama has done perfectly fine with rural white in the upper midwest (north of Indianapolis in Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa), the plains states (NE, KS, WY, ND), mountain west (ID, likely SD and MT - per the current polls), NE (Maine, et al) and Pacific Coast.

The problem has been lazy punditry... though - they've finally started to recognize that it's not a "rural white" issue -- it's an Appalachia issue.

Too many folks have tried to generically read the race from a chronological standpoint, extrapolate a broad demographic meter --- completely ignoring any basic geography.  

Obama has 'struggled with rural whites' because he's found in himself in the midst of an Appalachia murderer's row... SW PA, WV, KY, -- with portions of southern OH and IN (which share a lot more with Appalachia than they do the midwest).

He didn't do well in those areas in VA or NC either... but VA and NC have Appalachian minority populations.

by zonk 2008-05-27 07:56AM | 0 recs
Solid Analysis...but MO Ain't All Ozark

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

by howardpark 2008-05-27 07:51AM | 0 recs
HC has become the stronger GE candidate

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

by deepee 2008-05-27 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

You buried the lede:

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

GREAT news for Obama!

by fugazi 2008-05-27 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

by wasder 2008-05-27 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

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

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

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

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

by RussTC3 2008-05-27 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West
>It's an oddity that Clinton has become the stronger GE candidate against McCain. Because he has to take on dirty campaigning from both McCain and Clinton instead of just McCain. Clinton polls better in the GE against McCain exactly because she is no longer seen as a candidate and thus faces no fire from the Republicans. If she were the front runner at the moment, and was still taking fire from the Repubs she would be lower in the GE polls.
by Gar Lipow 2008-05-27 08:02AM | 0 recs
Anyone notice this Obama lie today?
CBS reports that Obama said his grandfather was in the army brigade that liberated Auschwitz.  http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/26/ politics/fromtheroad/entry4127479.shtml  How was that possible?
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?Mod uleId=10005131
Nope.  It was the Red army.
by katmandu1 2008-05-27 08:08AM | 0 recs
Phantom TROLL Rate!

GOP troll!

TROLL TROLL TROLL

Troll

-chris "you're still a troll" blask

by chrisblask 2008-05-27 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

by venavena 2008-05-27 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

by disturbed1 2008-05-27 08:13AM | 0 recs
Slam Dunks and New Terrain

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

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

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

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

by JDF 2008-05-27 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Slam Dunks and New Terrain

Which is precisely why I'm so down on Obama's chances. In the primaries, he gets to campaign intensely in every state. In the general, not at all. He touches down on airport tarmacs and holds one or two rallies per state. That's it. Obama's retail campaign advantage amounts to nada in the general election. His money advantage is gone too. Those two advantage were what he rode to the nomination. And both those ponies have done bolted.

by ColoradoGuy 2008-05-27 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Slam Dunks and New Terrain

a.) His monetary advantage is going to be HUGE

b.) Based on how well executed their strategy was for the primary I am expecting them to be pretty smart in the General as well.

by JDF 2008-05-28 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

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

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

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

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

by evantakesall 2008-05-27 08:16AM | 0 recs
Hillary's electability

Despite all the whining about how mean the media has been and how nasty the Obama campaign has been Hillary has gotten a free pass. None of her Democratic rivals have lifted a finger to use the piles of garbage the Clintons have accumulated in the last 12 years. While Hilary ran TV ads and was denouncing Obama 24/7 over his bitter gaffe Axelrod and Obama were defending Hillary on her idiotic RFK comment which helped take the wind out of the media frenzy. The Republicans won't be so kind, they will be happy to get down in the mud and play gotcha with Hillary.

If Hillary some how managed to wrestle the nomination away on the convention floor she would lose in a landslide. The devisions we are now seeing in the party are nothing comapred to what another 3 months and a floor fight would do. Without the African American vote Clinton couldn't carry NY state never mind any swing states. She would enter the contest with sky high negatives after a realy nasty fight and then would get hit with a tidal wave of slime about her and Bill's activities in the last ten years that woiuld mike Wright and Rezko look like a walk in the park.

All these projections about Hillary being more electable are based on magical thinking that discount what she would have to do to get the nomination. The impact that would have on party unity and the baggage she carries that has gone totally unexamined. There really is no way at this point for Clinton to become POTUS. If the process ends June 6 and Obama is the nominee he will have his work cut out for him in uniting the party but it is not an insurmountable task. If this goes on through August and after a brutal floor fight Hillary somehow miraculously pulls off a victory (ain't gonna happen but lets make believe it could ) the party will be shattered.

THis is why the Supers will end it as soon as the last primary is over. They don't want to lose.

by hankg 2008-05-27 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West
What is the point of this kind of diary?
by french imp 2008-05-27 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Exactly.

There is no point to this, Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee. This diary only serves to disparage Obama.

Disgraceful.

by montana36 2008-05-27 09:02AM | 0 recs
there are a few points.
A) Jerome gets to be very sanctimonious and adopt an "I told you so" tone based on somewhat specious logic.
B) He gets to bash Obama which is his favorite past time.
C) He starts making the transition from devoted HRC pundit, to reluctant Democratic Nominee supporter with a touch of a analysis.
by neutron 2008-05-27 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

The point of this kind of diary is to bring a touch of reality to the Obama supporters who believe they have already won.  

You have won nothing yet.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 11:44AM | 0 recs
Whats the Matter with Kentucky?

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

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

by keithdarlingbrekhus 2008-05-27 08:27AM | 0 recs
Kentucky might be waking up

McConnell is trailing Lunsford in the latest Rasmussen poll.

by Bee 2008-05-27 08:36AM | 0 recs
Obama looks to win every state!
It is rather sad to read this kind of sillyness. Why are we still arguing? Do you hear arguments that Juliani can win California and New York against Clinton and Mcsame can't. Juliani would win florida because he can get the Jewish vote.
Honestly, I have never been subjected to so many red herrings in my life.
by eddieb 2008-05-27 08:34AM | 0 recs
Good reasons for her to stop already

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

by cacamp 2008-05-27 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

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

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

by zebedee 2008-05-27 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

Rubbish.

Obama supporters aren't looking for Hillary to drop out of the race, just stop the Rove-like negative attacks and abide by the official DNC rules that she had previously agreed to regarding MI and FL.

"If this were a sporting event and the side that was ahead were screaming for the other side to give up before the final whistle, how would that go down with the fans and the media?"

Actually it happens all the time. When teams are down by insurmountable scores they often put in some new guys to give them experience and save up their best players for the next game.

Hillary should follow that lead and try to save whatever is left of her political career. She'll be lucky to hold her Senate seat if she continues on this path.

by montana36 2008-05-27 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

This is the kind of thing I mean. Of course they've been calling for her to drop out, just listen to them or read the blogs. Even on MYDD, although this blogs is much more civilized that Huff Po, Kos, TPM et al. As though a couple of weeks can make a difference between now and November!

As for Rove-like negative attacks, that's your opinion. Whatever attacks there were by the campaign itself have been explicit, based on things like experience and fitness, not the character assassination of both Clintons as racists, corrupt Washington manipulators etc. And this all started before Clinton had raised anything negative, from the time of the "driver's licence debate" before which Edwards and Obama uggested they were going to hit her as a calculating triangulating manipulator (which they did).

And the veiled attacks by Obama on the Clinton presidency, perhaps the most stupid tactic when this is the only Democratic administration since JFK that could be widely accepted as successful. In any other country, after such a failure by a current administration, the opposition would be contrasting what things were like when they last held power rather than attack their own record.

by zebedee 2008-05-27 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

I am not calling for her to drop out so that Obama can claim the nomination, he's already won it really, waiting two weeks for it to be official is fine.

Staying in the race simply to bash the eventual nominee is in poor taste and does not win you any political points.

As a New Yorker who voted Hillary into the Senate, I will not make that mistake again. After her recent performance in this primary I will be certain to support anyone who runs against her here.

I have had enough of devisive politics.

by montana36 2008-05-27 10:59AM | 0 recs
Why is Hillary doing better now?

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

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

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

by RT 2008-05-27 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Hillary doing better now?

Are you saying this campaign has been tougher on Obama than Clinton? Jesooos friggin you know who. What are you smoking and can I have some?

by ColoradoGuy 2008-05-27 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Hillary doing better now?

In my mind, the media has been harder on Clinton on a day to day level.  However, Clinton never faced the scrutiny and criticism that Obama faced from Pastorgate to Bittergate.  Both of those attacks, which Hillary personally joined, were, in my mind, extremely unfair.  In fact, as a life long Clinton supporter (my first presidential vote was for Bill), the most disappointed I've ever been is when Clinton not only didn't step up and destroy the absurdity of Pastorgate, but actually augmented it.  That was utterly distressing.  

One of the reasons that I think HRC supporters feel attacked is that a number of leading bloggers and online media sites support Obama (Huffingtonpost has clearly drunk the koolaid).  However, that is not most people's msm.  In fact, most Americans believe that Obama has been more unfairly attacked than HRC AND they think HRC has played a role in  those attacks.  So, you can dismiss this as more pro-Obama spin, but my only point is that to state that one candidate has been unequivocally treated more negatively than another does not actually jive with any data. In fact, the NY Times did a self-analysis in the wake of such criticism and found it unmerited (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinio n/09pubed.html?scp=6&sq=times+campai gn+coverage++public+editor&st=nyt)  

I guess I think we all need to do a better job of self-reflection before accusing others of smoking pot.

by chrispy 2008-05-27 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Hillary doing better now?

Clinton has faced accusations of lying, racism, blind ambition, purposeful divisivenss, cold calculation, being emasculating, and being a bitch  and that has just been from Obama supporters the last six months.

From others, and especially the Right-wing which fears her, she has faced accusations of being Satan, (Which Don Imus, a radio figure who reaches millions, calls her daily), of being a murderer, a lesbian, a drug lord, a perjurer, an embezzler, a madam, the antiChrist, and a bitch.

Please, the Rev Wright kerfuffle was NOTHING compared to whats coming..

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Hillary doing better now?

Okay, but rallying at a Scranton, PA event, Hillary supporters asked me why I supported the following

a) a Muslim
b) a Socialist
and c) a "Nigger."

My point is that comparing who has been treated more or less fairly is neither helpful nor possibly objective.

by chrispy 2008-05-27 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

This is ridiculous.

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

Yeah.  Until they do.

Such "truths" can change at any time.  

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

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

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

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

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

by Reluctantpopstar 2008-05-27 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

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

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

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

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

by chrispy 2008-05-27 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome Looks for Any Poll

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

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

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

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

by citizensane 2008-05-27 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome Looks for Any Poll

Spoken like a Republican.  We are Democrats, we wait til the votes are all counted.

by dembluestates 2008-05-27 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome Looks for Any Poll

Denial, thy name is dembluestates.  The numbers speak for themselves, but perhaps you are waiting for the June "surprise"?  Ain't gonna happen.  Obama wins this on June 4th with "banked" SD pledges.  

Conventional wisdom wonders whether THIS will be enough for you to accept that the nomination is not going to Hillary?  

On June 5th it will be time for Hillary to do her promised campaigning for Obama.  Those of her loyal supporters who follow her example will come along as well.  Those who buck the party's nomination can cry to McSame.

by citizensane 2008-05-27 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

by nzubechukwu 2008-05-27 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama looks to the West

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

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

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

by lja 2008-05-27 03:35PM | 0 recs
and a year ago Polls said Clinton wins Dem Primary

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

by erlin 2008-05-27 10:38PM | 0 recs
Jerome seems to be shifting...

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

by al1 2008-05-28 02:21AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads