Both Clinton and Obama poll equally well against McCain, but it all comes down to the Electoral College.
Clinton will get blown out in some states. She won't do well in the mountain west or the deep south. (As a SC resident, my biggest concern about Clinton is that she'll drag the state ticket down.) But she wins where it matters. She can win in FL, PA, MI, OH, WV, and AR. If Democrats win these states, it's over. Obama has a slight edge in PA, but McCain leads in the other states. Democrats may dream about picking up VA, NC, or SC, but this is just a dream. Obama may get to within 5 in SC, but there is no difference between a 5 point loss, a 50 point loss, a 5 vote loss in the electoral college. It's winner take all.
Do the math. Clinton beats McCain. McCain beats Obama.
Clinton/Obama would be a great ticket, but I am afraid Obama is unelectable. Clinton has weaknesses of her own, but with the wind at her back she can get the 270 she needs.
The good news for Democrats is that while McCain is competitive, he is running 15-20 points ahead of his party. What this means is that even if McCain wins, he will be facing a VERY Democratic Congress. I'm encouraged by the MS-1 returns.
Darkening of the opponent's image is a standard tactic in political campaigns. It's like displaying an unflattering photo of them in your campaign literature. You want them to look dull and uninspiring, not bright and inspiring. It has nothing to do with race.
The Muslim rhetoric is a non-story.
The 3 AM ad was negative, but fair. McCain is going to have far worse.
I disagree. If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, I think she has a good shot at winning Arkansas.
Florida will be in play for both of them. Virginia has been trending blue as well.
As for the rest of the South, neither the yankee woman, nor the black man with the funny name is going to play well down here.
Neither candidate will win South Carolina. My biggest fear is that stopping Hillary Clinton will become a rallying cry for Republicans which will bury us down the ballot. Barack Obama may have the same effect, but the increase in African-American turnout will offset it. I see no comparable offset for Mrs. Clinton.
Obama has some serious vulnerabilities, but Hillary Clinton has run a disastrous campaign, while Obama hasn't made any serious mistakes.
This diary is another example of what's wrong with Hillary Clinton's campaign.
I see diaries about "Girls for Hillary", "Women for Hillary", a "women's uprising for Hillary"
What about the men? Men vote too.
Hillary's problem, and her fatal flaw, is that her campaign has a problem attracting male voters.
Hillary Clinton has a huge gender gap, especially compared with John McCain.
But the big difference [between Obama and Clinton] is men: Men give McCain an 18-point lead over Clinton, 57 percent to 39 percent, according to the CNN poll. The margin of error for that question was plus or minus 5 percentage points.
But if McCain and Obama went head to head, McCain's lead among men shrinks to three, 49 percent to 46 percent -- statistically a tie.
Women, on the other hand, vote for either Clinton or Obama by similar margins.
Hillary is winning blue state Democrats, just like Kerry and Gore.
Obama is turning out the AA vote and getting votes in states where Democrats usually don't do well.
As a red state Democrat, I dread Hillary being at the top of the ticket. She may win the Presidency, and I think she's make a good President, but she is so polarizing that she'll kill us down the ballot.
NOW has gotten hysterical over this. There is not a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Clinton's position on choice. I think a lot of it is reverse sexism. They want a woman to win so badly that they are trying to tar anyone who won't vote fore her as sexist.
NOW wanted a "No" vote, Planned Parenthood advised a "present" vote. This was a disagreement over tactics and Obama agreed with PP. I don't think anyone would accuse either group of being anti-choice.
Which is why no matter how enlightened we think we are, America really isn't ready for a woman to be President.
A female candidate is either "too soft" or "shrill." There is no middle ground. Since many Americans decide who they will vote for based on meaningless bullshit like this, a woman will have a very hard time winning the election.
I am not a Hillary supporter, but I thought she did well in the debate. I didn't see her as shrill. A bit frustrated, perhaps, but I think she did a good job in contrasting herself with Obama and Edwards.