First of all, Hillary gets a pretty tough rap about this 50 state strategy, but there are a lot of people who question whether Obama has any attention of repeating his trips to the mountain and great plains states in the GE. His strategy of rolling up big majorities, and big delegate counts, in the caucases in those states has no obvious parrallels in the GE. If the election is shaping up as a close one, Obama will not have the luxory of visiting these states where he has no chance of winning the EVs, just to help out the downticket D's. Obama may have to "camp out" in VA, just as Hillary may have to "camp out" in Ohio.

But, even if Obama does go to more states than Hillary would, that does not mean that he will necessarily be of more help, nationally, to downticket D's. To give an example, say Obama goes and visits Idaho and Kansas, and he does help the downticket D's there. Still, they may lose anyway. On the other hand, Hillary may be stuck in Ohio, where she helps fewer downticket D's, but helps them enough that she puts them over the top.

There are a million variations of these scenarios that we can play out. Some will favor one candidate, some the other. But there is simply no basis for the certitude insisted upon by many Obama supporters for the theory that he will have longer coattails than Hillary.

The margins of victory that Obama has rolled up in uncontested caucases, in primaries when Hillary had no money to compete, and in primaries held in states with large African American communities will not matter in November. While it was Hillary's own fault for not competing in the western caucases, the "big numbers" run up by Obama there are actually quite small when compared to the voter turnout in the general election. Getting 20,000 voters to come out for the Idaho caucas, when Hillary got almost none to come out, will not help the downticket Idaho Democrats in November. Similarly, the huge majority Obama ran up in Maryland, when Hillary had no money to compete, does not indicate that Obama would have longer coattails there in November, when they would both have money (again, this does not excuse Hillary's bad financial management in the primaries). And, finally, the big majorities run up by Obama in southern Democratic primaries by dominating and energizing the African American vote will not help much in November either. Even assuming that he repeats these feats in November, when the African American voters will know that he will not carry their states, the congressional districts are set up such that these voters are already in safe, Democratic, majority-minority districts.

Bowers has nothing but wishful thinking. And neither do you. Anyone can spin the date anyway they want to. There is no approved model to follow here. The Obama Long Coattail theory is nothing more than an article of faith.

It occured to me that you were instead referring to Obama's large "margins of victory" in the polls for November. As already stated, these polls were done before 3/4, when Obama was at the peak of his popularity and had all of his momentum. Even Bowers admits that these polls are no longer operative. And, polls for the GE taken in Feb. or March are simply not reliable enough to build any kind of argument. They are certainly not reliable when it comes to margin of victory, as most contests tend to tighten up as election day approaches.

We need to win "the base" in the places where we haven't won it in the last 2 elections, like Ohio and West Va. Bill Clinton carried those states, Hillary can too. Obama bringing in "new people to grow the base" in Idaho won't help us, because he won't carry Idaho, just make it closer.

Let's seperate two different things, the coattail effect and the longterm effect.

As to the coattail effect, I think I've said it all. Yes, Obama is bringing in new voters, but Hillary is better at holding the base. Which strategy is better for D's as a whole nationwide is open to debate. Clearly, neither you nor anyone else here has made a persuasive case for the absolute certainty with which the view that Obama will have longer coattails is held by his supporters. And, since you mention the new voters, I will reiterate that these new voters are Obama voters, they are not necessarily Democratic party voters. They are attracted by Obama's "post partisan" stance. They hear Obama say that both parties are responsible for the mess in Washington. And they hardly ever hear Obama use the words "Democrat" or "Democratic party." In short, there is simply no reason to believe that these new voters will help the downticket D's any more than the reliable base voters that Hillary attracts.

As to the long term effect, the argument is pretty similar. Yes, Obama is drawing in new voters, and that should be good for our party. On the other hand, as just stated, he is not really drawing them in as Democrats. He downplays party affiliation. He is all about wooing Independents and Republicans. Why do you think these voters attracted by Obama will stay Democrats?

After this round of primaries, assuming Obama's wins the nomination, the new voters will never even have to be registered as Democrats to vote for Obama in a meaningful election again. If Obama loses the GE, that's that, and he's off the national scene. If he wins the GE, he's a shoe-in for the D party nomination in 2012, so no one needs to bother about voting in those primaries. And, of course, the new voters can vote to re-elect Obama in the 2012 GE without being registered Democrats.

It strikes me as odd that a candidate who bills himself as post partisan should be seen as the vehicle for building and expanding our party longterm. And even more odd that the candidate who is tagged by this candidate with the label "partisan," as if it were a negative, should be seen as limiting the party's growth.

Yes, but he spent the 14 million dollars against ridiculous, carpet bagger, totally out of touch with Illinois, Keyes in the general election.