Anything more than a 10 point loss in PA and we need to start questioning Obama's GE chances.

[NJSecularist]

I can understand if he loses the state by 5-10 points. Hillary is a strong candidate. She appeals to working class whites, which are a large portion of the PA electorate. This is a state tailor made for her.

But Obama is the frontrunner. What does it say about the frontrunner when he gets blown out in a state we need to carry in the general election?

Pennsylvania is an absoultely essential state we need to carry in the general election. Period. There is no feasible chance for us to win the White House without going through Pennsylvania. And if Obama cannot come close in this race after spending millions here (and outspending Hillary by a wide margin), then it really says something about what Pennsylvanians, and especially working-class whites, think of him.

If he loses Pennsylvania by more than 10 points, I want all of his supporters to think this through logically. Obama is my candidate, I have donated a few hundred dollars to his candidacy, but we need to get real here. The most important thing is that we win the presidency. Period.

If Obama gets blown out in PA as the frontrunner in this campaign, then we really need to start worrying. It reminds me very much of how Ted Kennedy carried Pennsylvania in the 1980 primaries. Carter suffered a humiliating loss in the state, and then he proceded to whooped by Ronald Reagan in Pennsylvania (and the rest of the country) in 1980.

I am still holding out hope that Obama wins Pennsylvania or loses it by single digits. Obama's beating in Ohio was disconcering enough, but if he loses two very important swing states by double digits, all of us Obama supporters need to put down the kool-aid and to really evaluate his candidacy and whether we have a chance to win in November. Pride is good, but nobody will care about pride when the 44th President of the United States John McCain is appointing another Samuel Alito the Surpreme Court.

[AtomicKitten]

1. Obama's delegate lead in insurmountable.

Hillary is banking on a superdelegate coup d'etat but, hey, keep hope alive.

[NJSecularist]

6. Delegates don't matter. Hillary will take this to the convention if she blows out Obama in PA.

Neither candidate has enough pledged delegates to win the nomination anyways.

It's fair game if Hillary takes this to the convention if Obama gets blown out in PA. It is well within her right.

[DJ13]

10. Hillary will take this to the convention if *_______________

* This space left intentionally blank in order to continue changing the location as Hillary continues losing.

[cliffordu]

43. The Rapture takes Obama.

[AZ Criminal JD]

140. If Wright is his preacher he doesn't need to worry about that.

[cliffordu]

152. I love Wright.

he was a U.S.Marine MEDIC, Earned three White House citations, community activist, Aids activist.

What have you done for anyone lately?

Except sit on your ass and smear men who've made a difference in thousands of lives, I mean.



:puke:

[hell-bent]

164. Yes, he is a real uniter of all races and religions!

[cliffordu]

167. Yep, I'm white and 56 and I love him. Tells the truth.

have YOU ever done that??

[papau]

207. "God Damn America" as Obama's slogan is a real winner - guarantees his election

[roguevalley]

248. and what have you done in your life that matches up? Nothing.

[Hepburn]

302. What the hell have YOU done that is noteworthy?

:eyes:

[cali]

19. I think you make a good point in your OP but if the SDs put

Obama over the top at the end of the primary season, Hillary will not take it to the convention.

[NJSecularist]

46. Let's hope that the superdelegates hold up and wait for the convention if Obama gets blown out.

If the superdelegates continue to gravitate towards Obama while he continues to lose very important states like Pennsylvania by large margins, that gives Hillary's voters the impression that their votes are being ignored. That the party insiders are giving Hillary the nomination.That is not a good thing, and it may lead to a good majority of them moving over to the McCain column.

[Zachstar]

49. No the only thing that is not good is you spreading fear.

If you cant take the heat. Just leave politics till November.

[NJSecularist]

53. So voters in Ohio and (potentially) Pennsylvania should be ignored?

Those are two vitally important swing states. Both of which we will likely need to carry to win the election. Obama isn't winning Georgia in the GE. He isn't winning Mississippi. He isn't winning North Carolina.

I am not spreading fear, I am spreading common sense.

[Zachstar]

66. No you are spreading fear in my view. The same tired arguement of "OH NOES OBAMA CANT WIN IN GE"

If you are not secretly a Clinton supporter you mise well just Declare because you are spreading their talking point.

Shame on you!

[BzaDem]

73. SHAME ON SOMEONE for looking at all issues and not being a blind supporter

who can't see the obvious.

[Zachstar]

77. The Obvious= Obama winning more states Popular Vote Clinton admitting he can win in November

Don't worry I am sure the OP will be joining the Clinton camp and bashing Obama soon enough. If not then oh well but I have seen it before.

I am not supporting Obama to have a damn (D) in the white house. I want change and Obama has proven to me he can bring change.

[NJSecularist]

92. Who cares if Obama padded his popular vote total in states like Georgia?

We won't win them in the general election anyways.

[Zachstar]

100. Then leave.

Bye Bye I wonder how the Clinton folks will treat ya when you start talking to them that way.

[gateley]

181. Whoa -- Obama padded his popular vote total in states like Georgia?

WTF does that mean?

[NJSecularist]

208. He won Georgia on the back of a large black vote for him.

Why should what happens in Georgia have any basis on why we pick our nominee? It's a state that we have no chance to win in the Fall.

[Hippo_Tron]

213. It means that black people don't count

[gateley]

260. Apparently. nt

[NJSecularist]

308. False. Obama winning Idaho or Alaska doesn't count either.

How many black people are in Idaho or Alaska?

[Tarheel_Dem]

95. I'm sorry, but you lost me at "kool-aid"? And I agree with the poster

you sound more like a Hillary supporter to me. You've even picked up their language. If you want to make the switch, then by all means do so. You sound like that TropicsDude ferchrissakes.

[NJSecularist]

122. Don't ever compare me to TropicsDude.

:)

Unlike him, I don't think Obama has made many gaffes. I still like Obama as a candidate.

But I would like to win the election and Obama's chances to win the GE are so razor thin with the amount of states that he plays well in. He puts Florida out of play and makes Ohio a Republican lean state.

[Shae]

188. Hillary is not the answer....

Her positive ratings were polled less than a month ago at 37%. I can't imagine they've risen since then.
How can you run a candidate whose positive ratings are that low?

[Spider Jerusalem]

272. Hillary is viewed as untrustworthy by a majority of the electorate and has sky-high negatives.

She is by far the weaker GE candidate, and a primary is not a general election.

[RaleighNCDUer]

107. Can't speak for the others, but I believe he WILL take NC.

I'm guessing that your vast knowledge of the other states is probably equal to your knowledge of NC.

Thanks for playing.

[verges]

264. Why is this an issue?

Obama has gained from bring 30%+ down to a practically non-existant deficit. PA will be close, and Obama isn't going to lose by 10%.

And please remember, Republicans really HATE Senator Clinton's guts! I mean really. I don't know a single Republican that would vote for Clinton. I do know Republican Obama supporters. I know this is only anecdotal, but I do feel that this is the case.

Does anyone really think that a Republican who advocates staying in Irag for 100 years, admits he knows nothing about the economy (during the worst economic period in the past thirty years) and who looks to be in bad health is electable at all? Sens. Obama AND Clinton should be going after him, rather than each other!

[jackson_dem]

283. Yes you are. Thanks for being prosense

[PoliticalAmazon]

298. We know from Hillary that it's the voters who don't vote for her who don't count. n/t

[ScarletSniper]

37. If the SDs give it to her when he has the lead in multiple categories..count me out and you can

count out a host of other people I know... that's it.

[NJSecularist]

50. Let me know in the nomination rules where it says the person who leads...

in the delegate count deserves the nomination when neither candidate has reached the 2024 threshold.

It doesn't.

It says that whomever reaches the 2024 threshold shall be awarded the nomination.

Hillary is not breaking any rules here. Neither candidate has reached 2024 delegates yet.

[Zachstar]

61. Nothing about the rules it is about the support.

So um why don't you just declare your support for Clinton and be done with it?

[ScarletSniper]

90. Thank you...lol

[ScarletSniper]

89. You read what I said..and I stand by it

[cliffordu]

40. It's well within her right to vote for McCain, too.

Which is exactly what she's going to do if she drags this out.

[RiverStone]

282. Her right to drag the party through the morass till we implode

The SuperD's will not allow this dance to go till the convention.

A coup against the will of the pledged delegates and popular vote will create a clusterfuck of unprecedented proportions. In fact, it could fracture the party so bad we would not only lose the GE, but our majority on The Hill.

After Obama cleans her clock in NC and hopefully pulls out a win in Indiana --- the math will be so damn obvious to all that the SD's will pull the plug on her candidacy.

And if Obama gets any kind of a win (or very narrow loss) in PA - it may be over before the end of the month.

[rox63]

306. At the convention, delegates are all that matter

And she has little to no chance of catching him in the delegate count. How many SD's has she picked up since Super Tuesday? And how many has Obama picked up? Do the math and look at the trends. They favor Obama, not Clinton.

[Exilednight]

322. Delegates matter in the primary, and this is a primary. n/t

[madrchsod]

15. she`s also banking on florida`s popular vote counts

rendell said so this morning

[Petey Wheatie]

103. You sound like a bad guy from Star Wars. "We are invulnerable!" lol n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

116. Please, trot out the numbers that show how Hillary can win.

Prove that she can climb that mountain.

[Petey Wheatie]

121. The numbers were against Luke Skywalker too! LOL Hillary gonna kickass Tues! n/t

[gateley]

184. Hi Petey Wheatie --

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[ClassWarrior]

2. Clinton's going to win by 20. They've been managing expectations for weeks...

...and you're buying into it.

But either way, it won't change Obama's delegate lead by much.

NGU.

[hell-bent]

104. Are you saying that if Hillary wins by 20 points

it will not affect the opinion of the SDs? 20 points might mean a 600,000 plurality for Hillary. There goes his popular vote lead if you include the 300,000 plurality in Florida. Do you really think the SDs are that stupid not to recognize this as a major factor in their decision? GMAFB!

[Cha]

3. We don't need to do shit..

you do all the freakin' handwringing for us. I'm tired of it.

[benddem]

4. Quit swallowing those talking points

show me one place where a candidate has come in 2nd in the primaries he/she didn't take the state in the GE. This is specious.

[NJSecularist]

9. Bill carried Colorado in 1992 after losing it in the primaries to Jerry Brown.

The difference is that he lost it by a razor thin margin.

If Obama gets blown out in PA, it's a different ball-game.

[Zachstar]

41. No the only ball game perhaps is yall stop showing fear.

[thoughtcrime1984]

183. According to electoral-vote.com, she is only 1% better vs McCain

in PA. And 7% in OH, but Obama better in MI by 11%, she is much better in FL, but he wins WI, IA, CO and she doesn't. She is just barely winning in several states, where he is much stronger. The back and forth changes from day to day as different polls come in. It is tough to say which candidate would do better vs. McCain based on these polls, is the bottom line. If he gets to 2024 delegates, he is the candidate, of course, and the SD's will make the final decision. I still think that if a candidate is leading by a comfortable margin in the delegates and popular vote, then the SD results will most likely reflect that, and put him over the top. The PA/OH argument is indeed specious, as is any electoral argument, based on the dynamic poll results that show either candidate doing better on a given day. The final results in the Primaries then must be the only deciding factor, IMO, as polling vs. McCain is far from definitive.

[jackson_dem]

284. That gap is 5-6% in the poll average in PA, 8% in Ohio, and a whopping 12% in Florida

Iowa has 7 electoral votes. Florida has 27. Obama supporters neglect to factor in the fact different states have different numbers of electoral votes.

That Michigan number is based on a single poll.

[PBS Poll-435]

21. How about KERRY in South Carolina?

[NJSecularist]

60. Kerry didn't win South Carolina in the GE. n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

69. Again....Show me one place where:

1. Candidate came in 2nd in the primaries.... Kerry in SC in 2004

2. He/She didn't take the state in the GE.... Kerry in SC in 2004

[NJSecularist]

75. The only comparision I can think of is Oklahoma in 2004.

The last 2 primaries have been breezes for both candidates.

[JI7]

214. John Kerry lost Vermont in the Primary but won it in the GE

[jackson_dem]

285. That was Dean's home state. PA isn't Clinton's home state

[dbonds]

5. Umm, Hillary had a 20 point lead 6 weeks ago.

PA is hers to loose. If Obama keeps it under 10 points then that will be quite the blow to her.

[NJSecularist]

14. None of these expectation games matter in the Fall when we need to carry these states.

What does it say about a presumed frontrunner when he walks into every vitally important swing state and is down 20?

Doesn't that say that they are not happy with the frontrunner?

[Zachstar]

42. No it says you are fearful for no reason.

[Adelante]

158. It is not fear

It's mind-fucking.

[dbonds]

149. You are talking like being down in a democratic primary is the same as the GE.

They are not related. Democrats will vote for the dem nominee. What one dem is in relation to another dem has no bearing on the GE. Trying to say they are is disingenuous.

[NJSecularist]

210. Tell that to John Kerry. He lost 10% of the Democratic vote in 2004.

If he had won only 2% more of the Democratic vote, he would won the presidency.

[stillcool]

319. and you never read ..

"What happened in Ohio", or the plethora of articles concerning problems with our voting systems in the 2004 election? Where have you been?

[Diane R]

7. Yup...Hillary needs to win by at least 20%. Even then, she doesn't have a chance of catching up.

[Bread and Circus]

8. I'm sorry, please explain how Hillary Clinton is electoral gold...

It's reasonable to consider Obama having trouble "sealing the deal", but how is the losing candidate who is widely deemed as non trustworthy the "electable one"?

To be frank, the OP sounds like code language for "do we really want to line up behind a black guy?"

At what point do we draw a line in the sand and stick up for what's right?

If this election is "too important to lose" it's a little to late in the cycle for second thoughts.

[Cha]

17. hilary's already SWIFTBOATED her puffed up self

There is no breathing room between hilary and mccain.



hilary dishonored our Soldiers





Obama wants to honor them.

[tishaLA]

82. Great picture of Sen Clinton in her

Bosnia camouflage

[NJSecularist]

18. Don't bring racism into this.

I've supported Obama for months. Let's keep this conversation out of the gutter.

Hillary plays much better as a candidate in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. That is very hard to ignore. If she wins 2 or 3 of those states, she will win the presidency. Not to mention she has a chance to put Arkansas and West Virginia in play, where Obama does not.

[Bread and Circus]

27. Fair enough, but who was supposed to win this in a walk?

If you guessed Clinton, you would be 100% right.

So then, that raises a huge question:

Why the heck after all her early money, big name endorsements, polling in the 40's for years, name recognition (the Clinton name used to be godly in the Democratic party), and inevilitibilty - why couldn't Clinton "seal the deal"?

The basic answer is that despite her solid "40% of the Democratic Party" bulwark (mainly low information voters and middle aged white women) the rest of the country just can't stand her in one way or another. Through this whole process, the more she campaigns, the more her favorables have gone down and the more her unfavorables have gone up.

60% untrustworthy is an abysmal statistic that she has rightly earned.

So, if you are so worried that Obama is "unelectable" you better really think long and hard about the one who failed to "seal the deal" and and about the one who might pull off the biggest political upset of the last 100 years.

[Liberal Gramma]

57. She loses some other states, though

Washington is a reliably blue state and the polling shows that Obama beats McCain big-time, and Hillary loses to McCain by an equally large margin. I know WA doesn't have the delegates that PA has, but they all add up. Being able to bring in a few big states doesn't make up for losing a lot of small states. Add to that the fact that OH and FL are always iffy. Even if Hillary got the candidacy (unlikely) there's no guarantee she could bring in those two states.

[NJSecularist]

65. I have seen Hillary winning WA by a small margin.

I believe Rasmussen's latest polling has her up by 3. Obama certainly plays well there (and better than Hillary), but I think that we will win the state regardless as long as Seattle doesn't secede from Washington. ;)

It's been a reliable blue state for a while.

[Liberal Gramma]

93. It's a reliably blue state with a LOT of Obama supporters.

The Seattle metro area is blue, and most of the rest of the state is red. The red part hates Hillary. Seattle is the key: if Clinton takes the nomination, she has to take it fair and square. If the SD's award it to her, Seattle won't turn out to offset the rest of the state.

[NJSecularist]

245. The red part hates all Democrats. n/t

Either candidate will win Washington on the back of Seattle.

[Liberal Gramma]

249. That's not what the polls say

Of course, you probably know more than they do.

[NJSecularist]

251. Washington is reliably Democratic.

On the backs of Seattle, Obama or Hillary will deliver Washington for the Democrats. Seattle is just too large and too liberal for Washington to go red.

The red part hates all Democrats.

[Liberal Gramma]

253. Yes, Kerry or Obama can deliver Washington

Hillary can't

[jackson_dem]

286. She always comes out ahead in the electoral count

Obama supporters act as if every state has 3 electoral votes.

[hell-bent]

111. I must admire that your are questioning

the "cult thinking" on who is the most electable. :thumbsup:

[thesubstanceofdreams]

242. False, false, false

Hillary has as much a chance of taking Arkansas and West Virginia as Obama of taking Georgia and Alabama (that means: ZERO).
Even if she takes two out of three of PA, OH, and FL (which is a huge stretch by itself) she could still very well lose the election as she's tied or behind in many blue states like WI and OR.

Obama is the more electable candidate regardless of what happens in PA.

[NJSecularist]

246. Hillary has much more of a chance of carrying Arkansas and West Virginia

then Obama has of carrying Georgia and Alabama. To say otherwise is absurd. Bill carried both in 1992 and 1996. Obama has no connection to Georgia and Alabama. He will get beat badly in both states.

[NJSecularist]

59. Hillary is not electoral gold.

I never said that.

I did say she is a better general election candidate, however.

Her performances in Ohio and (potentially) Pennsylvania will be hard to ignore. How can we write off those two states in the Fall?

[Zachstar]

71. Then hop on over to her camp.

Because if all one cares about is the President having a (D) then go with whoever you think can win.

For me. It is about principal so you can take your fear and shove it.

[Bake]

304. And yet you have yet to address any of the substance of NJSec's OP.

Why is that? Is just asking the simple question so wrong?

And you wonder why some call you people a cult.

Bake

[Bread and Circus]

106. How in the world can you extrapolate primary performance or polls into GE results?

It seems utterly preposterous to me considering how many factors will be different once we have a presumptive nominee.

And even if you could reasonably extrapolate, it seems like Clinton did a very good job of showing us just how bad of a GE candidate she would make.

Really, by your reasoning, neither of them would make good GE candidates but its too late for that kind of thinking. If you are worried Obama losing a few states, then you should worry about Hillary losing the rest.

[Cha]

109. Yeah, why don't go over to the

hilarys if you think she's more electable after she's already Swiftboated herself? We need strong Obama supporters..not promoters for the lying hilary.

[Petey Wheatie]

11. Damn right! n/t

[anonymous171]

12. If he loses by more than 12, he will have to rethink his strategy.

Mainly, he needs to up the negative attacks on Clinton. She has been given a pass for far to long.

[rocktivity]

39. Obama will be in trouble ONLY if he loses ALL the remaining contests by more than 25 points,

because then Hillary WOULD be able to throw herself on the mercy of the superdelegates. She WON'T be able to pull that off without the delegate numbers to back it up with.

:headbang:
rocknation

[MethuenProgressive]

13. "start questioning"?

Many of us have been doing that for months.

[IsItJustMe]

16. Is this faux news psy ops per chance?

[KittyWampus]

20. Take your concern and shove it. Obama COULD have gone heavy negative and choose not to.

How about placing your fucking concern where it belongs- on the asshole who won't concede and allow our nominee to start running to win in November.

[anonymous171]

22. He should've. If he had pushed the wage garnishment issue to the forefront Clinton would be behind.

[Zachstar]

35. I agree with the shove it part. It is sad when we see Obama supporters show such fear.

Ive seen a few of em lately. And I worry that they will crack before the GE.

The politics of Change is going to not be easy so if anyone is in this campaign for an easy win then they mise well just not pay attention till November.

We have to work and remain strong.

[RaleighNCDUer]

128. mise well?

What language is that?

[jackson_dem]

287. He has gone negative

[PM7nj]

23. PA has been a blue state since 1992

and it is getting bluer by the day (at least in the SE... which is where almost 1/3 of the people live). Either candidate will be able to carry PA.

[Zachstar]

33. Bingo!! So let us stop showing fear!

[NJSecularist]

68. Even if Obama loses by double digits?

Carter, as the incumbent, lost it by a small margin in the primaries and then proceded to lose it by 7 points to Ray Gun in 1980.

When you don't listen to the will of the voters in PA, especially if over 10% more of the voters choose Hillary over Obama, then you risk putting the state in play.

[PM7nj]

85. Obama lost by double digits in NY and MA

do you think he will lose those states in a GE? Hillary lost Illinois and Maryland by double digits, do you think she will lose those states in a GE?

[NJSecularist]

94. Pennsylvania and Ohio are a different ball-game.

They are not solid blue states like New York, Massachusetts, Illinois and Maryland.

[PM7nj]

119. You do know this is the "big states" argument Camp Hillary has been pushing?

I believe PA is more of a blue state than most people think. Democratic registration is up, republican is down. The Philadelphia suburbs have had it with war and religious fundamentalism and are turning toward the Democratic party. Obama may have a problem with those few Reagan "Democrats" in places like Luzern County, but so has every Dem.

I would only worry if Hillary takes this all the way to the convention. Then we will have a problem.

[NJSecularist]

129. Hillary's big state argument is correct.

Even if give Obama the benefit of the doubt in Pennsylvania, what about Florida and Ohio?

[PM7nj]

138. *bangs head on keyboard*

I am not going to have this argument because neither of us can win. You buy the "big state" argument and I don't.

[RaleighNCDUer]

169. The repukes are going to take florida anyway. That is a guarantee.

No disrespect to the half-dozen or so good Democrats in that state, but it is NOT going to go blue - the republicans have an unbeatable triumvirate of voters, voting machines, and vote tabulators, so we can safely dismiss any worry about Florida.

Either Obama or Clinton can win Pennsylvania against McCain. So we can safely dismiss any worry about Pennsylvania.

That leave Ohio to worry about, and as the repukes no longer control the elections there, it will be a fair fight in any case. Still, too close to call.

[jackson_dem]

290. Kerry lost FL by only 5 points, Gore won it, and Clinton won it in 96'

Can we win Florida with the right candidate? Yes we can!

[jackson_dem]

289. Obama is a joke in Florida. Nominate Obama and cede the fourth largest state to the rethugs

He is also weak in Ohio where he does 8 points worse than Clinton. He at least has a shot at carrying Ohio. He has no shot in Florida.

[Yael]

198. Yeah, because 2000 and 2004 both went for GWB here.

Oh wait, they didn't.

[RaleighNCDUer]

Using the stolen election of 1980 as a template?

Are you fucking insane?

[NJSecularist]

313. Stolen election?

Carter lost by 400 electoral votes!!!

Take off your tin foil hat for a second. Some years we get beat fair and square. 1980 was that year.

[jackson_dem]

288. Wrong. Kerry won PA by only 2 points. It is a perhaps more purple than Ohio

Just because we have wound up winning it each time since 1992 doesn't change the fact it is a swing state.

[jenmito]

24. Obama beats McCain in PA by 8 points so don't worry:

"The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Pennsylvania finds Obama leading McCain 47% to 39% and Clinton with a 47% to 38% advantage. That’s a significant change from a month ago when McCain was essentially even with both Democrats."

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/election_2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election

[Zachstar]

31. Bingo!

[jenmito]

47. That should calm her fears!

:hi:

[depakid]

58. LOL. Rassmussen

Dancing to the wrong tune....

[NJSecularist]

72. I have seen other polls where McCain is leading.

The latest Strategic Vision Poll has Obama losing PA by 10 points to McCain.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/SV_PAApril16_08.html

What I am saying is that if you don't listen to the will of the voters in PA, especially if they vote for Hillary by an overwhelming margin, you risk the chance of disenfranchising those voters and turning a swing state that should trend Democratic to red.

[Zachstar]

80. So we base everything on PA? LOL!

Just join the Clinton camp already.

[jackson_dem]

291. That is one cherry picked poll

[rocktivity]

25. So what's the solution--pick a candidate that COULDN'T beat a black frontrunner?

That's same DLC "only big states count" strategy that has gotten us nowhere in the last two presidential contests. Then Howard Dean came along with his fifty-state strategy, and we take Congress back!

Hillary will have to get 85% of the vote in order to get a blowout and 65% in order to get a win that counts--55% will only allow her to save face. If Hillary is so much better than Obama she'd be WOULD be beating him. And remember, our GE opponent is John McCain, not the Pope!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Raine]

26. She can win by 20%, she can win by 30% but

she still can not overcome Obama's lead. Question it all you want but the numbers don't favor her and they aren't going to no matter how you slice it.

Edit: added a word.

[cottonseed]

28. Right now the debate is not on whether Hillary is "electable".

At the moment the electability argument doesn't seem to be applied to both candidates. We're looking at what's wrong with Obama. Nothing in these conversations explain how exactly Hillary is more electable than Obama. Considering she's losing in every single important measure, while turning now towards a general election type campaign, I'd say we could have a real problem if Hillary continues on with this.

[NJSecularist]

81. What is wrong with Hillary?

1) She doesn't play well in the West. She will lose Colorado. Obama will put it in play. Nevada and New Mexico look unlikely for her to win.
2) She has shown weakness in states like Minnesota and Washington, traditional blue states, where Obama has not.

There it is.

But she makes up for that with her performances in Florida, Ohio and (potentially) Pennsylvania.

[jackson_dem]

292. She leads in both Nevada and New Mexico. The latest CO poll has both losing by solid margins

The hype about Obama in Colorado is based solely on Rassmussen's polling. CO has 9 electoral votes. Ceding 27 (Florida) for 9 is very stupid.

Minnesota and Washington are legitimate areas of strength for Obama versus Clinton but again the math ads up for her. Combine Minnesota and Washington and they don't equal Ohio's electoral votes (Ohio is the smallest of the big 3).

[NJSecularist]

SurveyUSA has also shown Obama to be in the lead in Colorado.

What latest poll are you speaking of? Obama leads by 3 in Rasmussen's latest CO poll.

She leads by 1 in Rasmussen's latest NM poll. She also only leads by 1 is Rasmussen's latest Nevada poll.

[high density]

29. Why weren't you questioning Clinton's GE chances after she

lost 12 straight states?

Sorry but PA is not the end all be all of politics, any more than Iowa or NH.

[NJSecularist]

88. Obama won a bunch of red states and traditional blue states. Big deal.

It is like Hillary creating an argument that she is more electable because she won Florida.

Here are the 12 straight states Obama won:

Louisana - Red state. Who cares, Obama will lose this in the Fall. So will Hillary.

Nebraska - Red State. Both candidates will lose this in the Fall.
Washington - both candidates will win this state in the fall
Virgin Islands - doesn't matter.
Maine, DC and Maryland - all states that either candidate will carry comfortably in the general election.
Virginia - a state that will go Republican this year.
Hawaii - a state that will go to either Democrat
Wisconsin - Obama's biggest win during this streak. His performance in Wisconsin was very impressive and it is a swing state. This is the only feather in his cap for the GE on this 12 state winning streak.

Pennyslvania is the be-all-end-all of politics, especially for Democrats. How do you expect to get 270 electoral votes without Pennyslvania as part of the Democrat coalition?

[high density]

97. Again confusing the general election with the primary season

Remember this is still a primary going on since Clinton refuses to drop out...

[NJSecularist]

105. And? They are both connected.

Running up your margins in states we have no chance of winning, like Georgia and Mississippi, should not be a determination of how we choose our candidate.

[Zachstar]

30. Um can we stop showing fear? K thx

[Buzz Clik]

32. Start? The Hillary klatch uses that as their number one campaign pitch.

Endlessly. Repeatedly. They even claim McCain is more worthy than Obama.

As far as Tuesday goes, a 15 point or more victory simply makes Hillary not quite completely finished.

[babylonsister]

34. Poll: Clinton margin in Pa. won't cut Obama's delegate lead

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x129449

Poll: Clinton margin in Pa. won't cut Obama's delegate lead
By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers

* Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2008



WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton leads among bowlers, gun owners and hunters in Pennsylvania, a blue-collar trifecta that is helping her hold an edge over rival Barack Obama heading into Tuesday's pivotal primary there.

Clinton leads by solid margins in all three slices of working-class Pennsylvania — the political battleground where the two Democrats have waged war for control of the state, according to a new poll conducted for McClatchy Newspapers, MSNBC and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The one group where she does not have a solid lead is among beer drinkers; they split evenly between her and Obama.

Overall, Clinton leads Obama by a margin of 48-43 percent, with 8 percent still undecided. The telelphone survey of 625 likely Pennsylvania voters was taken April 17-18 and had an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

"Clinton leads in Pennsylvania," said Brad Coker, the managing partner for Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, which conducted the poll.

"However, the lead doesn't indicate she's going to win by a large enough margin to make a serious impact on Obama's overall delegate lead."

more...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/34246.html

[hell-bent]

126. Delegate lead doesn't mean jack shit

unless you reach the magic number to secure the nomination. Face it, the SDs will then decide who is the most electable. They might think about BO's 2000 vote plurality in Wyoming against a 300,000 plurality in Ohio and perhaps in Pennsylvania and then decide who really represents the majority of the Democratic voters.

[babylonsister]

127. Tell Hill that! nt

[dano81818]

36. agree, but "need to start" does not necessarily

equal "must prevent from getting the nomination"

any way you look at it, hillaray has a tough road to the nomination.

for her to win, either BO has to complete implode for her to pick up the pieces, or she has to do things that will look to many like "stealing" the nomination.

either way it aint pretty for her

[Jersey Devil]

299. LOL, very convincing dan-o

Hey, how ya doin' you old reprobate?

[BzaDem]

38. I'm glad that some Obama supporters are concerned about electability.

If I thought Obama was more electable, I would be supporting him. I have nothing against him personally, nor do I have anything against Hillary personally.

I really sometimes think that some other Obama supporters really don't care who wins the GE as long as Hillary is not the nominee.

[Zachstar]

45. I think it is more along the lines of fear rather than caring.

I have seen multiple Obama supports showing lots of fear lately. With one jumping over to Clinton and starting to crap on Obama.

No spine = No politics

[Liberal Gramma]

62. Not this one.

I genuinely believe Obama is more electable than Hillary. Her negatives are record-breakingly high, and going higher all the time.

[NJSecularist]

98. Negatives don't matter.

Hillary just needs to win Pennsylvania and Ohio/Florida and she'll win the election. And she polls very well there.

[Hippo_Tron]

135. That strategy worked horridly the last two times around

Kerry was polling ahead of Bush in Ohio and Florida during the summer. Early polls simply aren't reliable.

[jackson_dem]

293. That is because he was the "new" candidate. "New" candidates almost always go down...

This is something lost on Obama supporters. The fact that he polls only 1-2 points better than Clinton against McSame nationally and consistently does worse in the electoral college shows how weak he is. He should be crushing McSame right now since he is a "new" candidate in a change year. If he is this shaky now how weak will he be once the other party attacks him? Both Kerry and Bush suffered 11 point declines as the other party defined them in 2004 and 2000. If the same thing holds for Obama he will lose the general election by 9-10, which is worse than Dukakis and on par with Carter's 1980 defeat...

[Hippo_Tron]

324. You're confusing April with post-convention

Bill Clinton was the "new candidate" right now and he was behind Bush and Perot in 1992. He got a huge bounce after the convention which narrowed as the debates got closer.

Obama will be 10 points ahead of McDinosaur the day after he accepts the nomination. The difference between Obama and Kerry is that Bush was an incumbent which gives the challenger almost no flexibility to try and define them. McDinosaur has gotten a free ride thus far on Keating Five and all of the other shit that we already know about not to mention what we don't know about because his primary opponents were all beating up on each other instead of on him.

We know with Obama that it will be Ayers, Rezko, Wright which is just a repeat of the same guilt by association shit that Republicans have been throwing at Democrats for decades. The fact that Kerry almost won last time shows that it isn't nearly as effective as it used to be.

Hillary is indeed more vetted, in the sense that almost everything they will use against her was already used in the 90's. The thing is that while the public overwhelmingly rallied to her husband in spite of those attacks, it doesn't mean that they will rally around her. Voters may like the Clinton years but that doesn't mean they will like the idea of Hillary Clinton as President. The Clinton team made that mistake once when they put her in charge of the health care task force.

BTW, I agree with you that John Edwards probably would've been more of a sure thing than either Hillary or Obama. I just think that Hillary supporters are ignoring her own negatives while they simultaneously hyper focus on Obama's.

[Liberal Gramma]

166. Negatives DO matter

If over 50% of the country views a candidate negatively, that candidate is toast. The only saving grace is if the opponent has higher negatives, and that is not the case here.

And there is no guarantee she would win either Florida, which has voted Rep in the last few elections, or Ohio, which goes back and forth.

You are kidding yourself.

[RaleighNCDUer]

175. A three state strategy.

Brilliant!

[hell-bent]

154. Bingo!

[aaaaaa5a]

44. Here's A Possibility Not Widely Entertained In The MSM

Take a look at the electoral college map with Obama. Then add Governor Ed Rendell to the ticket. If Rendell as a VP can deliver Pennsylvania, Obama's election chances look great. In-fact he could lose Ohio and Florida and still get elected. And it would make whatever happens on Tuesday (good or bad) completely irrelevant.

I think this is why Rendell is very cautious when speaking about Obama. He see's what potentially lies ahead for him.

[PM7nj]

52. He doesn't need Rendell...

He can win PA without him. Personally, I think Rendell did way too many fishy things both in City Hall and in Harrisburg. I don't want him on the ticket.

Actually, I think he should get someone from Ohio. Gov Strickland or Sen Brown. They both aren't great, but they may be able to deliver Ohio.

[Barack_America]

48. The CLOSEST Hillary got to Obama in the Midwest was a 17-point loss.

In Wisconsin.

How do you like our general election chances if we can't carry a single Midwestern state?


ETA: Don't believe the Pennsylvania hype.

[NJSecularist]

102. Hillary will win Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan.

I noticed you forgot about Ohio. Let's not forget about Missouri either, which she has a chance to carry and Obama doesn't.

Wisconsin is in reach for her, but she doesn't need to win the state if she wins Ohio and Pennsylvania.

[PM7nj]

123. Obama has a shot at MO.

Better than Hillary at least. He won it during the primaries, so of course he will win it in the general :eyes:

[jackson_dem]

295. He won MO because rethug ringers voted 75-21 for him

[jackson_dem]

294. She won Ohio by 10, the second largest Midwestern state

[yourguide]

51. Are you joking?

One state does not make a 50 state strategy.

[Zachstar]

54. I do not think he is joking. I think the OP is full of fear.

[depakid]

63. The OP is dead on about that. Dems won't in in November without Pennsylvania.

All the pie in the sky notions of a 50 state strategy don't amount to a hill of beans when it comes down to the presidential GE.

[QC]

70. Obama doesn't need Pennsylvania or Ohio or Michigan or Florida!

He can more than make up for them with South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, etc.!

[NJSecularist]

108. Some of these people live in their own dream world.

They actually think we'll carry states like Georgia, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, etc.

[jefferson_dem]

223. Yay! There's the 50-state strategy spirit.

Your pitiful defeatism is depressing. :thumsdown:

[NJSecularist]

317. A 50 state strategy is very overrated in presidential elections.

20 states you can eliminate right off the bat.

[hell-bent]

159. Surely you jest!

Ha,ha,ha,,,, Win Utah? Wyoming? Oh yes, that 2,000 vote victory in Wyoming was really impressive. WTF? I guess they are really spiking that special potion with something unusual.

[beachmom]

55. Based on every poll I have seen, Hillary will win by double digits.

So this OP is disingenuous. The undecideds in those polls are Hillary's strong demographic groups, so they will break her way.

And winning/losing a primary does not predict how that candidate will do in the General. Obama is well positioned to win PA in the General, unless Hillary voters vote for McCain, a highly unlikely scenario given his stance on Iraq.

[Zachstar]

56. BTW when can we expect you to hop on over to the Clinton camp?

[yourguide]

64. This is no longer HRC vs Obama...this is Obama vs McCain

And what matters is can Obama beat McCain. This logic is like saying oh, HRC took cali so maybe we should rethink this.

[quakerboy]

67. Anything less than a 16% win in PA

and we need to question Hillary's primary chances. Gotta win the one before you can do the other.

[crankychatter]

74. this is an utter crock of shit

tell the losing candidate to shut the fuck up and stop tearing down the party, gabiche?

these turgid, convoluted, math challenged, nuanced to the degree of UTTER INDECIPHERABILITY.... rants are precisely that... however polite and pretentious they are...

just wishful tripe and biased speculation

sometimes I wish they'd just come out and say what they mean instead of this incessant electability whining

that word has been used since time began TO SHOOT DOWN THE CANDIDATE NOT IN THE POCKET OF WAR PROFITEERS

AMERICA IS AGAINST THE WAR.... it ain't gonna hurt in the General Election

America, on the whole, is capable of electing a Black man

yeah, you didn't say it but we KNOW the deal ok?

fucking GET it... jeezus

[BzaDem]

79. YOU are the one who is math-challenged. Obama supporters only look at math when it helps them.

Because once you turn to the GE, it is the OBAMA supporters that are math challenged. They can add delegates, but not electoral votes.

[Zachstar]

83. Once we turn to the GE we have both camps together and democrats united.

Keep pushing damn polls that have democrats competing against a single republican candidate. It only makes yall look just as silly.

The OP can do the same in yall's camp.

[BzaDem]

86. It's a LOT more complicated than just saying that over and over.

Democrats do defect in November every single year. It's just a question of how many, and in what states. And which can stem defections more.

[Zachstar]

Um if Clinton wins by anything but Delegates. Theres going to be a HELL of alot of defections

And McCain will win in a landslide.

If Clinton supporters want to defect because a man called Obama won the delegate lead then that is their choice but there will not be many of em.

Overturn the pledged delegates in either way and there will be a republican in the white house for decades.

Spin it as you will but that is what will happen in my view.

[BzaDem]

101. Switch delegate with popular vote and I agree.

If Clinton wins the popular vote but the SDs give it to Obama, there will be just as much outrage. If the SDs give it to Clinton with her having won the popular vote, it will be reported as saving the party a.la. what they couldn't do in 2000 with Gore.

If Obama wins the popular vote, I agree with you.

[Zachstar]

115. It is not you or me that I am talking about.

You see the democratic party picks its candidate based on delegates. and supers.

The supers job is to keep people like Brittney Spears from getting the nomination (Because they win by little more than name recognition and not issues). and getting their asses kicked in the GE with any republican that can say more than 3 words a minute.

That is kind of a screwed up description but basically otherwise the supers are supposed to go who they think is best for their state or party after they are elected.

It is now obvious both Candidates are not pop stars but serious candidates.

So if they overturn the normal system for electing a candidate you will lose everything from the activist base to people who feel their candidate was cheated due to race or gender. And other issues.

I would love for the party to switch to popular vote only. Yet everyone understands it to be delegates for this year.

[NJSecularist]

133. Understands what?

The only thing written in the rule book is that a candidate must reach 2024 delegates to win the nomination.

It says nothing about the candidate that is leading in the delegate count that has yet to reach the 2025 threshold should win the nomination.

[Zachstar]

144. Spin it all you want Clinton Supporter but the people like me do not buy that

We believe the candidate that wins the delegates and shown to be serious candidates is the nominee.

So um ya if it happens McCain will be the president. Because you will lose so many people that you WILL NOT convince to return with that argument.

And the republicans will be QUICK to solidify their mistrust.

Same goes for Clinton BTW. If she leads and the supers overturn her pledged delegate lead then many MANY people will leave the party and McCain will be the president.

[NJSecularist]

180. Well..

We believe the candidate that wins the delegates and shown to be serious candidates is the nominee.

That is your belief. That is not everybody's belief. That is not in the DNC rulebook either.

[hell-bent]

170. Well, then you "real" Democrats

can now vote for Ralphie or write in Dean's name,right?

[hell-bent]

150. Holy Clingons,

I never thought the Movement would spike the Kool-Aid with psychotogens.:>)

[brindis_desala]

76. Even if she could win Penn and Fla you'd be giving up

Washington and Oregon, and probably, Wisconsin, Colorado and New Mexico. That's nuts!

[NJSecularist]

110. We don't need Colorado and New Mexico if we win Pennsylvania and Florida.

She'll also likely carry Ohio.

[RaleighNCDUer]

160. Spoken like a true DLCer.

Let's only think about the important states. And the important people. And the important lobbyists.

[RaleighNCDUer]

157. And NC. nt

[crankychatter]

78. "I'm for Obama BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT

this makes me ill

this one is getting hidden before i come thru the damn screen

I abhor this shit

[BzaDem]

87. Then why do you bother coming here?

If even a supporter of your own candidate makes you "ill" and "come thru the damn screen" just because they disagree with you on one point, why do you bother coming here, where tons of people have varying opinions?

[MarjorieG]

84. Obama needs spotting 5-8 points for Rendell political machine and unverifiable voting machines.

This is Obama getting an introduction to PA, and correction on OH, where he got incorrectly swiped on NAFTA. The other nearby markets also hold out more hope because of this advertising.

Hillary still does have the power to win with her experience claims shot (NAFTA, bringing peace to Ireland, etc), as well as high unfavorables.

[Gore1FL]

91. Anything less than a 50% loss

and we'll have to continue questioning Hillary's desire to fight an un-winnable battle.

[NJSecularist]

114. This is the problem with some of Obama's suporters.

This is a winnable battle for Hillary. Neither candidate will reach 2025 pledged delegates. It will go to the convention. Hillary can win it there.

[Zachstar]

117. Then head on over to her camp!

Bye Bye!

[Gore1FL]

233. I am more an Edwards supporter

blessed with the ability to do mathematics.

[NC_Nurse]

96. Why? Aren't you too busy questioning Hillary's GE chances? She's run a crappy

campaign and is actually losing to someone who was virtually unknown before this race. Bullshit.

[RaleighNCDUer]

99. Thanks for your concern.

Not a problem.

[Hippo_Tron]

112. Your Ted Kennedy example is completely irrelevant to 2008

Carter was slapped with so many problems beyond his control, it's not even funny. Despite that he had a small lead over Raygun until the debate. Carter blew the debate (it was Raygun's famous "there you go again" debate) and Carter lost big time because of it.

[woolldog]

113. I disagree.

I don't think it matters much if Hillary wins big. This idea that because Pennsylvanians overhwelmingly prefer Hillary to Obama, that they will vote for McCain over the democrat is flawed, and it makes no sense. For one thing, a vote for Hillary isn't necessarily a vote against Obama. Nor is a vote against Obama, equivalent to a vote for McCain.

The argument you're making also cuts against Hillary in some states. For ecxample, we also need Wisconsin in the GE and Obama cleaned up against her there, it was a blowout, as a matter of fact....and she is polling behind McCain there....so by that reasoning whom do we choose? :shrug:

The assignment of a certain number of delegates to a state is the mechanism by which you weigh some states over others in selecting the nominee. And that is why nothing but delegates earned--not "big states" or "blue states" or "red state"--should matter.

[NJSecularist]

118. Well, here's the electability argument: Wisconsin and Colorado vs. Pennyslvania and Ohio and Florida

Obama - Wisconsin and Colorado - 19 electoral votes
Hillary - Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida - 68 electoral votes

Which one would you chose?

[Zachstar]

I would choose you just switching to Clinton and stop spreading fear like you are for Obama.

[woolldog]

131. I think you've framed it incorrectly

The choice I see is:

Obama--PA or FL or OH

Clinton--PA, FL andOhio

Obama only needs one of the 3. Clinton must win all three.

There's also a flaw in trying to guage electability through polls 7 months out, while the primary battle is in full swing. I think both O and H numbers take a hit because of that. States where Obama won, like WI and IA, and VA, Hillary is struggling in. While states that Hillary won, MA, OH, NJ Obama is struggling in. I think that has to do with passions being inflamed over the primary battle and these numbers will even out once we select a nominee and the party unites.

[NJSecularist]

136. Hillary needs to only win 2 or 3 of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania

Same as Obama.

What Democratic states are you taking out of Hillary's column where she needs to win all 3?

[woolldog]

147. Here's my map

Even if you add WI to the map she still needs all 3. I give her MI and WA even though she is behind there, I believe.

[NJSecularist]

153. Give her Oregon too.

That is a reliably blue state.

Then she needs just 1 of the following: Missouri, West Virginia, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Colorado. All states which she has a chance to win.

[woolldog]

161. Oregon is NOT

a reliably blue state. Kerry only won Oregon by 80K votes, and Hillary Clinton is not popular there. Oregon would go to McCain.

edit: I should've given her New Mexico on my map. My bad.

[NJSecularist]

176. Oregon is trending more Democratic lately.

I apologize for saying it is reliably blue, but it is close.

[BzaDem]

137. That's crap. Both Obama and Clint need two of PA, FL, and OH.

The logic of Obama supporters is that Obama only needs to win one, because it is easier to win several SOLIDLY-REPUBLICAN states than win one swing state. That's not going to happen. Obama is not going to win Wyoming or Idaho, and he probably won't win Colorado and New Mexico.

Obama needs two (and might win none), and Clinton needs two (and might win three).

[woolldog]

174. New Mexico, both should win

And CO Obama is ahead or even. He is ahead in NV too I believe and in IA.

He is competitive in OH against McCain, and in a whole group of other states is more competitive than her. He is beating McCain in PA.

So he would only need to flip: CO, if he hung onto PA, where he was polling ahead of McCain.

Hillary will have to flip, FL and OH...and hold onto PA, of course. I think that's a lot more difficult. But maybe you don't think so? Oh well.

[brindis_desala]

148. That's specious. Obama is beating McCain in Penn

and he is tied or ahead of Clinton in both Ohio and Fla. The longer she campaigns the higher her unfavorables.

[NJSecularist]

155. I'll add Pennsylvania.

That is 39 electoral votes, compared to Hillary's 68.

[RaleighNCDUer]

205. Ah ah ahh --

Can't count PA for both. Not kosher.

[NJSecularist]

215. It's then Obama's 19 to Hillary's 48. Advantage Hillary. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

241. Having trouble with numbers tonite?

You had:

Obama - Wisconsin and Colorado - 19 electoral votes
Hillary - Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida - 68 electoral votes

Then you added PA to Obama, in a fit of generosity, leaving it:

Obama - Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Colorado - 39 electoral votes
Hillary - Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida - 68 electoral votes

I suggested that PA can't count for both, so you subtracted it from both:

Obama - Wisconsin and Colorado - 19 electoral votes
Hillary - Ohio and Florida - 48 electoral votes

When the proper solution was:

Obama - Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Colorado - 39 electoral votes
Hillary - Ohio and Florida - 48 electoral votes

Still favors your girl, but it is nonetheless specious because neither of them is taking Florida, leaving it:

Obama - Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Colorado - 39 electoral votes
Hillary - Ohio - 21 electoral votes

[NJSecularist]

263. And Hillary is losing Pennsylvania? Get real.

We can also add West Virginia and Arkansas if you like. 21+ 21(PA) + 5 (WV) + 6 (AR) = 53 electoral votes

[RaleighNCDUer]

186. Well, since Obama puts NC into play while Hillary does not,

and the republicans are going to take florida anyway, and Washington will go Obama, but not Hillary, how about

Obama - North Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin and Colorado - 45 electoral votes
Hillary - Pennsylvania and Ohio - 41 electoral votes

Which one would you chose?

[NJSecularist]

321. Obama is not winning North Carolina.

And Hillary will win Washington.

Obama will do much better than Hillary in North Carolina, but he will not win the state.

[TayTay]

120. You mean 19 points

The bar was set at 19 points. If Sen. Obama loses by more than 19, maybe your arguments apply. He went into that state with a 19 point+ disadvantage. Anything below that shows a slow bleed of support for HRC.

[dbmk]

124. Objection

"But Obama is the frontrunner. What does it say about the frontrunner when he gets blown out in a state we need to carry in the general election?"

First you would have to argue that Obama could not carry it in the GE. I see your points, but that part needs better data.

Secondly it is a troubling argument, as it is basically a question of timing/order in the primaries.

It could, technically, have been one of the first, same result and he could have won from there, and that argument would never be raised I think.

The fact that he has been able to whittle down the initial numbers so far - in what was assumed to be the presumed and name recognized candidates stronghold - is a show of strength in it self.

[Hamlette]

125. What about all the states where Obama beat Clinton by 20+%?

Mississippi O by 24%
Wyoming, O by 23
Vremont, O by 20
Democrats Abroad O by 33%
Wisconsin O by 17%
Hawaii O by 54%
Va O by 28%
MD O by 25%
DC O by 51.5%
Louisiana O by 22%
Nebraska, O by 35%
Virgin Islands, O by 82%
Ill O by 31%
GA, O by 35%
Minn, O by 34%
SC O by 29%
Alaska. O by 50.5%
Colorado O by 34%
Kansas O by 48%
Idaho, O by 62%




Do those states not count?

Remember, Hillary was polling much higher than O nationally during most of these places.


Or, does it only count if Hillary wins?

[BzaDem]

141. Most of those states are not in play in the GE.

You can continue to claim saying this is equivalent to saying "blah blah blah your state doens't count." But that is nothing more than a rhetorical technique. It doesn't mean anything. The absolute truth is that some states are in play for Democrats, and some aren't. Some of them are debatable (Colorado), and some aren't (Idaho).

[Zachstar]

145. Anything for (D) in the white house eh?

Well that crap will not work.

[BzaDem]

151. YES. YES, YES, YES.

We need a (D) in the white house. Period. Avoiding a hard-right Supreme Court for the next 20 years is too important.

[Zachstar]

165. Good then you will say that whoever leads in Delegates needs to be the nominee?

[BzaDem]

171. No, I will say that whoever leads in the popular vote needs to be the nominee.

Where one vote in Wyoming equals one vote in Texas -- not one vote in Wyoming equals 25 votes in Texas.

[RaleighNCDUer]

211. As good a reason as any for keeping Hillary out of the WH.

Because she will put in 'moderates' that will sell out the constitution to the highest bidder. Preserving abortion rights is not a good trade off for the constitution.

[BzaDem]

252. The SCOTUS is far more important than you think... on... guess it...

the constitution.

The SCOTUS decides what the constitution means. Does it mean that Congress has virtually no power to enact the Democratic adgenda, because of a Thomas interpretation of the commerce clause? Does it mean all affirmative action programs are unconstitutional? Does it mean that the voting rights act is unconstitutional (like Scalia and Thomas think), because it mentions race? Does it mean that there is no right to privacy? Does it allow juveniles to be executed? How about the mentally retarded? Does it allow "trials" of those at Gitmo in Kangaroo courts? Does it allow any American citizen to be arrested as an enemy combatant? Does it give the president unlimited authority to do whatever he wants through the commander in chief clause?

I could go on for pages. Those issues are decided by the Supreme Court. If a Republican wins the whitehouse, there will be 5 hard-right justices for the next 20 years. I hope you are happy when this happens.

[RaleighNCDUer]

256. And I contend that Hillary is no better than any moderate republican

on the SC. The RW will stop any left of moderate, and she will cave in an appoint a troglodyte, because that's what the DLC wants - protect corporate interests, expand US imperialism, support the security state.

The DLC does NOT support a Democratic agenda.

I know full well what's at stake - I'm not certain you do.

[BzaDem]

262. You are wrong.

Simple as that. A Democrat will appoint a liberal. A Republican will appoint a conservative. And if the Republicans do try to filibuster a Clinton nominee, they will most certainly try to filibuster an Obama nominee. And Obama will be the one to cave, because he will want to show that he unifies the parties and brings everyone together. Clinton won't cave, because she knows that this is just a pipe dream, that there will always be disagreement in politics (politics is in a sense defined that way), and she will fight for her nominee to the bitter end.

[RaleighNCDUer]

265. Two of the "liberals" on the court were appointed by conservative

presidents. You can't simply say 'democrats appoint liberals and republicans appoint conservatives'. The DLC power block, of which Hillary is a charter member, believes in US exceptionalism, free trade, is anti-union, pro-security state - there are DLC Democrats that are more conservative than many republicans.

I don't see her appointing anyone who would be any better than anyone appointed by McCain. To save the Supreme Court, you have to go with Obama, the constitutional scholar who KNOWS how threatened the constitution is. Someone who is interested more in principles than principal.

I don't know where you get this 'fighting the republicans' crap about Hillary. Until she ran up against Obama she'd never been in a fight in her life.

[BzaDem]

271. Wow, I rarely see so many wrong statements in a post.

Hillary hasn't been in a fight in her life? What about her fight to pass universal healthcare? If you don't call that a fight, then I have no idea what your conception of a fight is.

And you are pointing to the fact that Stevens and Souter were appointed by conservatives, so therefore, Hillary will appoint a conservative? That's a ridiculous argument. Stevens was appointed by Ford. Back then, Stevens was more conservative. He started out being to the right of Brennan/Marshall/etc, and his views changed over the years. But Ford certainly didn't appoint him because he thought he was a liberal. Ford ended up being pleased with his appointment, because Ford was more moderate, but at the time Ford appointed Stevens, he certainly wasn't considered a liberal.

Souter was appointed by H.W. Bush, because he was supposed to be a "stealth" conservative with no record. Unfortunately, HW got that completely wrong, and he turned out to be more liberal. Republicans were so pissed that now they want to ensure that no justice they appoint is another "Souter."

In other words, those two exceptions you mentioned were because of mistakes and changing views. It is still very clear: Republicans appoint conservatives (at least to the best of their knowledge), and Democrats appoint liberals.

McCain is going to be under huge pressure to appoint a right-wing justice who will certainly overturn Roe, and will probably overturn many other long-established precedents that have governed how we lived our lives (and how government operates). There is NO reason to think that a McCain appointee won't be any better than Roberts.

Hillary, on the other hand, voted against Roberts, and voted against Alito (both of whom McCain voted for). If you need any evidence that Hillary won't appoint justices McCain will appoint, that is it. More evidence is that Bill, DLC member, appointed Ginsburg and Breyer, two great Supreme Court justices. Hillary is strongly pro-choice, strongly believes in preserving Constitutional rights, strongly believes in a powerful legislature, and has other liberal views on many of the other issues that the SCOTUS decides.

You may dislike Hillary. You may hate the fact that she has (or appears to have for political purposes) centrist positions on many issues (most of which have nothing to do with SCOTUS). You may hate her personally. But the idea that she will appoint justices anywhere close to justices McCain will appoint is bogus. It is not born out in fact, and is obviously untrue.

[RaleighNCDUer]

280. Again, anyone she appoints will not differ from anyone McCain would

appoiont except possibly abortion issues - and forgive the heresy, but I don't really give a fuck about that. All that cancelling RvW would do is throw it back to the states, which is basically where it is today anyway. Across the country most women do not have abortion services available with a 3 hour drive. The point is moot.

The SC rules on a shit load more than abortion. To see who she'd appoint, look at the platforms the DLC supports - aggressive financial and military imperialism, the neolib version of the neocon agenda; the security state; anti-unionism. She will not appoint anyone who stands against these particulars. They are fundamental to her politcal beliefs. Even you must admit that she is far more conservative than Bill - he doesn't belong to a senate prayer circle that consists of people who did their level best to destroy him - so judging her by Bill's appointments is just silly.

And BTW, getting your ass kicked and then promptly rolling over is not fighting. It is getting your ass kicked and rolling over. Is that humiliation the best you could come up with?

[Hamlette]

156. PA is "not in play" either

it will go Dem.

Unless Hillary supporters really do have a childish temper tantrum to hurt the rest of us.

[BzaDem]

179. Um, Kerry only won it by 2 points. That's in play if any state is in play.

[NJSecularist]

172. Do those states not count?

Well, I'll break them down one by one.

Mississippi O by 24%
Wyoming, O by 23

Both are states he won't win in the general

Vremont, O by 20

Reliably blue. Either Democrat will win this state.

Democrats Abroad O by 33%

Who cares?

Wisconsin O by 17%

Obama's biggest win. A real swing state that Obama plays very well in.

Hawaii O by 54%

Caucus and a reliably Democratic state that both candidates will win.

Va O by 28%

Will vote Republican regardless of candidate this year.

MD O by 25%
DC O by 51.5%

Reliably Democratic regardless of candidate.

Louisiana O by 22%
Nebraska, O by 35%

Both red states neither candidate will win.

Virgin Islands, O by 82%

Who cares?

Ill O by 31%

Obama's home state. Both candidates will win this state regardless.

GA, O by 35%
SC O by 29%

Obama doesn't stand a chance here. Neither does Hillary.

Minn, O by 34%

This was a caucus. There are no caucuses in the GE.

Alaska. O by 50.5%

Neither candidate will win here.

Colorado O by 34%

This was a caucus, but Obama does play well here while Hillary doesn't.

Kansas O by 48%
Idaho, O by 62%

Both reliably Republican states that we won't win in the GE.

Basically Obama's coalition is full of reliability Red and Blue states that are not in doubt either way. His biggest win is in Wisconsin. Meanwhile, Hillary has Ohio, Florida and (most likely) Pennsylvania.

[totodeinhere]

130. The economy might be so bad by November that McCain couldn't even be elected dog catcher.

So I don't buy your line that a big loss in PA would mean that he is unelectable because that's just not so. The bad economic conditions should mean a landslide for either Obama or Clinton.

And besides that, what if Obama either wins or comes close? Wouldn't you agree that Senator Clinton should drop out then?

[BzaDem]

143. The economy is bad now. And McCain is either winning or is evenly matched in most polls.

So I don't buy that argument for a minute.

If Obama wins PA, she should drop out.

[butterfly77]

132. Bull, why does he need to drop out...

she needs to get her ass out, she is causing more people to dislike her if he were in her place he would have been told to drop out along time ago...

[jefferson_dem]

134. I'm surprised at this post, NJSecularist.

Your offerings here have always been reasonable and well-considered. This one is nowhere near that, in my opinion.

Why set the bar at 10? She had a 20 point advantage when Obama hit the ground. Even a fifteen point win will net Hillary no more than 30 delegates. Those will be made up by Obama in NC and OR.

Fact is...Obama is the stronger GE candidate, even without considering the titlewave of resentment that would ensue if the unelected SDs were to deliver the nomination to Hillary even though Obama wins the delegate race.

The nomination race is all but officially settled. The sooner that Hillary and her supporters realize that (or are forced to confront that), the better off our Party will be. Watch for big movement in that direction starting Wednesday.

[NJSecularist]

142. I set the bar at 10 because a frontrunner is expected to come close in a vitally important state.

What does it say about Obama's candidacy as a frontrunner when he enters every major manufacturing state he is down 20 points?

Even a fifteen point win will net Hillary no more than 30 delegates. Those will be made up by Obama in NC and OR.

Pledged Delegates don't matter at this point. Neither candidates has enough pledged delegates to win the nomination.

Fact is...Obama is the stronger GE candidate

That is not a fact, that is your opinion. I have my own opinion, but I have not presented it as fact.

even without considering the titlewave of resentment that would ensue if the unelected SDs were to deliver the nomination to Hillary even though Obama wins the delegate race.

What about the tidalwave of resentment from the voters in those vitally important states in Ohio, Florida and (potentially) PA whose voices were ignored? Are their voices going to be ignored over the voices of those in Georgia, a state we have no chance to carry in the GE?

The nomination race is all but officially settled.

The problem is that it isn't. If Hillary blows out Obama in Pennsylvania, this will go to the convention.

[Zachstar]

168. No you set the bar at 10 because you are a Clinton Supporter in my view

[jefferson_dem]

197. Ok.

"Pledged Delegates don't matter at this point."

Well, I guess they don't ... if you are cool with the idea that larglely unelected, unnacountable party insiders may select a candidate other than the one the voters and caucusers preferred. The candidate with more PDs going to the convention should be our party's nominee. Period. That is, unless you recommend we purge the title "Democratic" from our party name.


"That is not a fact, that is your opinion. I have my own opinion, but I have not presented it as fact."

Point taken.


"What about the tidalwave of resentment from the voters in those vitally important states in Ohio, Florida and (potentially) PA whose voices were ignored? Are their voices going to be ignored over the voices of those in Georgia, a state we have no chance to carry in the GE?"

Three points. First, the voices of voters in OH and PA have not been and will not be ignored. They will be considered in determining the number of pledged delegates heading to the convention, just as has happened in other states this primary season. Second, the FL situation is unfortunate but we cannot count votes cast in an election everyone knew was not legitimate. Third, Georgia would be an incredible uphill battle in the Fall but it's not outside the realm of possibility that Obama could make it competitive. Just like VA, LA, CO, IA and numerous other so-called red states...if Obama is the nominee. With Hillary, not so much.


"The problem is that it isn't. If Hillary blows out Obama in Pennsylvania, this will go to the convention."

Let's hope for the sake of our party, she does not take that destructive, self-agrandizing route. If she suggests that route it would disgrace and sully her reputation even more than she already has. More importantly, it would be absolutely necessary that responsible party figures and rank-in-file members call her our for that bullshit. I hope you will join us.

[NJSecularist]

202. Ok.

Well, I guess they don't ... if you are cool with the idea that larglely unelected, unnacountable party insiders may select a candidate other than the one the voters and caucusers preferred.

The voters and the caucusers also prefer Hillary Rodham Clinton. We are at a point where a small delegate difference or popular vote difference should not prevent us from evaluating each candidate's strength and weaknesses. Neither candidate has enough

The candidate with more PDs going to the convention should be our party's nominee. Period. That is, unless you recommend we purge the title "Democratic" from our party name.

The problem is that there is nothing to substantiate your statements. You say "Period", but you have nothing to back up your statements. There is nothing in the DNC nomination rulebook that says a candidate who has the most pledged delegates should win the nomination if they have not reached the 2025 threshold.

Three points. First, the voices of voters in OH and PA have not been and will not be ignored. They will be considered in determining the number of pledged delegates heading to the convention, just as has happened in other states this primary season. Second, the FL situation is unfortunate but we cannot count votes cast in an election everyone knew was not legitimate. Third, Georgia would be an incredible uphill battle in the Fall but it's not outside the realm of possibility that Obama could make it competitive. Just like VA, LA, CO, IA and numerous other so-called red states...if Obama is the nominee. With Hillary, not so much.

Virginia, Iowa and Colorado are the only three states in that list that Obama will put in play. Meanwhile, Hillary puts Missouri, West Virginia and Arkansas in play in addition to Florida.

Let's hope for the sake of our party, she does not take that destructive, self-agrandizing route.

There is nothing self-destructive about taking this to the convention. She has not been eliminated from contention and Obama has not reached the 2024 threshold.

If she suggests that route it would disgrace and sully her reputation even more than she already has.

Her reputation must be very good if she has won Ohio by 10 points over the presumed frontrunner and is about to do the same thing in Pennsylvania. Netroots does not speak for everybody.

More importantly, it would be absolutely necessary that responsible party figures and rank-in-file members call her our for that bullshit. I hope you will join us.

It is not bullshit. She is not breaking any rules. She doesn't have to leave the race until Obama wins the nomination. Since he can't seem to put her away, she has every right to say in the race.

[jefferson_dem]

219. Interesting talking points there, given that they are coming from a self-described Obama supporter.

Wow. Maybe it's time you reconsider your loyalties, NJSecularist. I must admit...I do not admire the flimsy defeatism, especially given everything he/we have been through this season.

[Hippo_Tron]

139. Kerry was polling well in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida this time in 2004

And look where it got him. You're banking on her being able to win those three states when there are plenty of things that could tip the balance to McGramps overnight.

And you're naive if you don't think Charlie Crist will be pulling out all the stops to make sure that any close election in Florida is "won" by McGramps.

[BzaDem]

146. So you would rather go with someone who ISN'T polling well in OH, PA, and horribly in FL?

[Hippo_Tron]

173. He is ahead of Dinosaur in PA in some polls, fairly close in Ohio

He does far better in Wisconsin against Dinosaur, better in Michigan in some polls, and he puts Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico into play. Obama WILL be competitive in Ohio and Pennsylvania. I'd rather have more winning scenarios than have Ohio and Florida be MUST WIN states. Especially since Obama will easily raise more money than Dinosaur.

[BzaDem]

190. Again, this logic doesn't work.

The number of scenarios doesn't matter, if the probability of winning those scenarios is low.

We don't need Obama to be competitive in Ohio and PA. We need him to WIN both (since he will lose FL by a lot). If he doesn't win both OH and PA, he is toast.

Because if he doesn't win both of them, he needs to win 3 states that went for Bush to make it up. Winning one of them? Possible. Winning two of them? Unlikely. Winning three of them? Wow.

Alternatively, Clinton is polling way ahead of McCain in OH and PA, and actually makes FL competitive (within MOE).

If you weight scenarios by probability of actually winning them, Clinton clearly comes out ahead. But alas, that is math.

[NJSecularist]

195. You are right.

Without Florida and Ohio, Obama must rely on turning Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico blue. All 3 states which Bush carried in 2004. 2 of which are in McCain's backyard.

We have no margin for error with Obama. He locks out Florida and he puts us at a disadvantage in Ohio.

[Hippo_Tron]

209. Again, you assume Hillary carries Washington, Oregon, and Wisconsin

And right now she doesn't do so well there. Iowa and New Mexico were less than one point races in 2004. Nevada was a 3 point race. Florida was a 5 point race and again Charlie Crist will rig any close race for McDinosaur. Obama is ahead of McDinosaur in Colorado which has a Democratic Governor, a Democratic Senator, a Democratic State Legislature, and may get another Democratic Senator.

I like Obama's chances a hell of a lot better of taking Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado than Hillary's chances of taking Florida. Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado delivered for us in the 2006 elections. Florida elected another Republican Governor and Bill Nelson would've been in serious trouble if his opponent were anybody but Katherine Harris.

[NJSecularist]

212. Hillary will carry Washington.

Oregon and Wisconsin are in doubt, but they do lean to the Democrats.

Hillary needs to win one state (Ohio) while Obama needs to win three states (Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico) because he doesn't play well in Ohio.

[Hippo_Tron]

216. Your argument makes no sense

I have just told you that Hillary isn't polling well in Washington, Oregon, and Wisconsin. You say "she will carry them, don't worry".

In the same breath you say Obama isn't polling well in Ohio, therefore he doesn't have a chance to win there.

[NJSecularist]

220. Washington is a reliable Democratic state. When is the last time a Democrat lost WA?

On the flip side, Ohio and Florida are not reliable Democratic states. They are swing states.

The Democrats don't lose Washington unless Seattle secedes from the state.

Wisconsin has went to the Democrats for the last 20 years. But those margins have been small, which is why it is a swing state.

Hillary does put Oregon in play, but by that same metric Obama would put Massachusetts in play because he polls badly there. Do you want to play this game?

[Hippo_Tron]

224. I do indeed want to play that game

Because by that same metric Obama puts Texas, North Carolina, and Nebraska into play.

Now that we've played the game can we both lower our guns and admit that April polls are a bit silly.

[NJSecularist]

227. Obama puts none of those in play.

Hillary doesn't lose Washington either. Obama will not lose Massachusetts.

Oregon and Wisconsin are fair game, however.

[Hippo_Tron]

243. Alright I think that's fair, lets work from that

First of all, despite what current polls say, I'm giving both Clinton and Obama the edge in New Hampshire. I know the Granite State is unpredictable but after tossing out two Republicans and sending Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter to Congress (both are pretty liberal) I just don't see them turning around and voting Republican.

Secondly I'm giving them both Michigan and New Jersey. Both of these states always scare us that they may go Republican early yet in both state and national elections they have delivered every single time since 2000.

Next we go to Ohio and Pennsylvania. IMO, these are going to be nail biters just like they were last time no matter who we nominate. I'll give Hillary a slight edge over Obama in these states but not by much. Kerry pulled it out in 2004, and he did it without these so-called "Reagan Democrats". Pennsylvania also resoundingly threw Santorum out of the senate in 2006 largely because of the war, which is where McGramps is most like Bush. Obama also gets higher than usual black turnout from the big cities. Clinton, assuming she can win these "Reagan Democrats", may have a slight edge but I think that argument is specious at best.

In Ohio, Kerry came very close to winning there in 2004 and may well have won if Ken Blackwell hadn't been counting the votes. Again, this is without "Reagan Democrats". Trade politics play more of a factor there this time than they did last time around either Hillary or Obama will beat McGramps on that one. Obama again gets more black turnout than last time but I give Hillary a slight edge if she really can carry some of these "Reagan Democrats" that she says she can. Still it's a nail-biter either way with Hillary having slightly more of a chance to pull it out.

Florida right now looks bad for Obama, but we'll see once we get close to election season. Again, Hillary may poll better there now but Florida hasn't been kind to Democrats since Bill Clinton won it in 1996. Gore won in 2000 but Jeb and Katherine Harris rigged it and again, I wouldn't be surprised if Charlie Crist pulls the same shit. The problem with Florida is that it is trending toward the GOP, when other key states are trending the other way. Clinton lost Florida in '92, won it in '96 by a few points (as an incumbent) and then Gore barely won it in 2000. Bill Nelson barely won in 2000, Kerry lost it in 2004, and in 2006 when the rest of the country had Bush-fatigue, they put Jeb Bush's anointed successor in the Governor's mansion. I simply don't like our chances in Florida with any candidate.

So here's where we are at. Both Obama and Clinton can and must win Pennsylvania, that's a given. Clinton can win Ohio, Wisconsin, and Oregon. Or she can win Ohio and Florida. Obama can win Ohio or he can win a combination of Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada.

Obama has two scenarios that he has a very good shot of winning. Clinton has one good scenario and one that involves Florida a state which just doesn't go well for Democrats. All in all I think they both can win.

Now I haven't included Missouri and Virginia because it's too early to see what they will do yet. That may change the calculations dramatically.

[NJSecularist]

244. Ok... here I go.

First of all, despite what current polls say, I'm giving both Clinton and Obama the edge in New Hampshire. I know the Granite State is unpredictable but after tossing out two Republicans and sending Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter to Congress (both are pretty liberal) I just don't see them turning around and voting Republican.

I think that is a pretty fair assumption, but keep in mind that the launching pad for McCain's candidacy in both 2000 and 2008 was New Hampshire.

Secondly I'm giving them both Michigan and New Jersey. Both of these states always scare us that they may go Republican early yet in both state and national elections they have delivered every single time since 2000.

I do not think either will lose Michigan or New Jersey.

Next we go to Ohio and Pennsylvania. IMO, these are going to be nail biters just like they were last time no matter who we nominate. I'll give Hillary a slight edge over Obama in these states but not by much. Kerry pulled it out in 2004, and he did it without these so-called "Reagan Democrats". Pennsylvania also resoundingly threw Santorum out of the senate in 2006 largely because of the war, which is where McGramps is most like Bush. Obama also gets higher than usual black turnout from the big cities. Clinton, assuming she can win these "Reagan Democrats", may have a slight edge but I think that argument is specious at best.

You are right. Kerry won Pennsylvania despite bleeding 15% Democratic support, which were most likely most of the "Reagan Democrats". We can win Pennsylvania without the "Reagan Democrats". And I by no means am saying that Obama cannot win Pennsylvania: he can win Pennsylvania on the back of larger than expected turnout in Philly and a good showing in Pittsburgh. But it is a state that I think has a much better chance of going McCain if Obama is the nominee. It is still a swing state, but Clinton gives us a better chance to carry it due to her Clinton clout and her appeal to working class whites.

In Ohio, Kerry came very close to winning there in 2004 and may well have won if Ken Blackwell hadn't been counting the votes. Again, this is without "Reagan Democrats". Trade politics play more of a factor there this time than they did last time around either Hillary or Obama will beat McGramps on that one. Obama again gets more black turnout than last time but I give Hillary a slight edge if she really can carry some of these "Reagan Democrats" that she says she can. Still it's a nail-biter either way with Hillary having slightly more of a chance to pull it out.

The key to Florida is keeping your margins respectable in the Southwest, Northwest and Central parts of the state. The Democrats will obviously carry Cuyahoga County, it is their biggest stronghold. They will carry the urban areas like Franklin County. Where Kerry got burned is that he got absolutely slaughtered in the the rest of the state. As I said above, he got killed in Southwest, Northwest and Central Ohio. I would expect more of the same from Obama. Hillary should be able to keep her margins up in those parts of the state. They were the keys to her primary win in Ohio and I don't think McCain will steal them from her. The only way Obama can steal the state is to increase turnout in Cuyahoga and Franklin Counties. They were pretty low compared to the rest of the state. If he can do that, he has a chance to win the state, but it will be an uphill battle.

Florida right now looks bad for Obama, but we'll see once we get close to election season. Again, Hillary may poll better there now but Florida hasn't been kind to Democrats since Bill Clinton won it in 1996. Gore won in 2000 but Jeb and Katherine Harris rigged it and again, I wouldn't be surprised if Charlie Crist pulls the same shit. The problem with Florida is that it is trending toward the GOP, when other key states are trending the other way. Clinton lost Florida in '92, won it in '96 by a few points (as an incumbent) and then Gore barely won it in 2000. Bill Nelson barely won in 2000, Kerry lost it in 2004, and in 2006 when the rest of the country had Bush-fatigue, they put Jeb Bush's anointed successor in the Governor's mansion. I simply don't like our chances in Florida with any candidate.

Obama gives us a remote chance in Florida and Hillary gives us a very good chance. It is still a state that is trending Republican, but if there is anybody that can steal the state from the Republicans, it is Hillary. Florida loves the Clintons.

So here's where we are at. Both Obama and Clinton can and must win Pennsylvania, that's a given. Clinton can win Ohio, Wisconsin, and Oregon. Or she can win Ohio and Florida. Obama can win Ohio or he can win a combination of Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada.

Yes, that's an accurate summary of how I feel. Obama can also win Oregon.

Obama has two scenarios that he has a very good shot of winning. Clinton has one good scenario and one that involves Florida a state which just doesn't go well for Democrats. All in all I think they both can win.

Hillary can win the election without Florida. Obama can win the electon without Ohio, but he must win 3 or 4 of Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa and Nevada. That is a pretty tough task for anybody to do.

Now I haven't included Missouri and Virginia because it's too early to see what they will do yet. That may change the calculations dramatically.

Virginia is a state where Obama is clearly better in, but it is a state that is still not ready for the Democrats to snipe. Obama will do better than both Gore and Kerry, however. Missouri is a state that I doubt Obama will win. Hillary has a decent chance. To win Missouri, you have to appeal to the working class blue collar whites. The black vote in St Louis is a given for either Democratic candidate.

[Hippo_Tron]

254. I think we're reaching some consensus here

I think your Pennsylvania analysis is spot on.

Ohio I agree with your analysis except I would add that Sherrod Brown and Ted Strickland did well in rural areas. Part of that was knowing how to campaign there, part of it was Bush fatigue/war fatigue. If there is indeed war fatigue, Obama can do better than Kerry did in those areas.

I still don't agree with you about Florida. Hillary isn't Bill. I've written long pieces about how Bill Clinton was able to play on the emotions of voters, much like Obama can, whereas Hillary is more like Kerry and makes appeals to voters rationally. I'll re-hash my argument about that again if you want.

Iowa looks very good for Obama and New Mexico will look great if he puts Richardson on the ticket (and IMO he's a top contender for it). Colorado is the big one in question and given recent trends I like Obama's chances there better than Hillary's chances in Florida.

Again, I'm waiting to see what happens with Missouri and Virginia. It may be a moot point since they both may give McLame comfortable leads.

Bottom line is that the electoral scenarios are close enough that we need to look at how this race will be defined nationally. I can get into why I think Obama can run a better race than Clinton, it is again about the emotional vs rational aspects.

[NJSecularist]

259. I think you make a good point about the Hillary vs. Bill comparision.

But the Clinton name has given Hillary numerous benefits. She is already defined by the voters in many of these states, including Florida. They love her. She doesn't need to get her point across emotionally as much as Bill did, she is a known quantity now. She can speak rationally instead of emotional and still do very good in Florida simply because her last name is Clinton.

[Hippo_Tron]

203. I have no problem with math

Lets remember that Hillary is losing or barely ahead in Washington, Oregon, and Wisconsin right now, and losing Michigan in some polls. Hillary has to win Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania if those trends continue.

Obama has to either win Pennsylvania and Ohio or he could alternatively win Pennsylvania, lose Ohio, and win a combination of Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada.

Now this is all based on April polling, which again is a bad measure for the fall. Right now polls show Obama competitive and Texas and North Carolina and I honestly don't think that will be the case. You're declaring Obama unelectable based on polls that will change drastically within the next two weeks let alone the next two months.

[BzaDem]

274. It's more about demographics than polls.

First, of all, I think Hillary will win Washington, Oregon, and Wisconsin (in addition to Ohio and Pennsylvania). Florida is a toss-up with her.

The main thing I have issue with is the "combination of Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada." Because I think it might be possible to win one. But with Obama, he has to win 3 of those. Let's say that the probability of him winning each of them individuall is .60. (This is very generous.) Well, the probability of winning 3 of them is .6*.6*.6 = .216. Thats a 21.6% chance of us winning the Whitehouse if he loses Ohio.

Obviously, I picked .6 out of thin air. But it is actually probably lower. The point is, it is MUCH harder to win 3 states that trend Republican than one swing state. Even if Obama wins the overall popular vote total in 3 of the 4 states you mentioned, he has to win each one individually to win the White House. And that is very difficult.

I do not want to rely on a combination of Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada. If we had to rely on anything, I would much rather rely on Hillary's comfortable margins in Ohio and PA. We would have won Ohio last time if it weren't for Blackwell, but Obama has the potential to reverse that. Hillary is more favored in Ohio and PA, and I think we should run with them.

[bowens43]

162. That's ridiclous.

Obama has a far better chance of winnning the GE then Hillary. Hillary was never a viable candidate. Why do you think that republicans have been pushing her as inevitable for years? It's because independents hate her with a passion, republicnas hate her even more. A large and growing percentage of Democrats will not vote for her.

Even if hillary had won the nomination, she still wouldn't be a better choice for the GE.

[Condem]

163. Get a call from Bill today, NJ?

[PM7nj]

187. I did!

I guess they can't get Pennsylvanians to fill the venue?

[Condem]

189. PM, it's sheer hell being a Clinton supporter.

[Yes We Did]

177. Where are you getting this assessment? If he loses PA, like OH to a democrat?

This view is rather obscene. Your assessment is not a clean one. First of all let's look at following. Obama and Clinton are splitting the Democratic vote between them.

Let's say she gets a 55-45 win. Come the general you don't think he gets his own voters plus at least 45 percent of her voters? You are drinking the kool-aid that Clinton's people are feeding you.

I know Bush has been in office too long already but I thought Dems had better common sense than this. The argument you make isn't an argument. It's listening to too much traditional media... or Clinton media. People need to use "good" common sense.

[NJSecularist]

182. 45% out of 100% of Hillary's supporters?

That certainly isn't good enough to win PA in the general.

[Yes We Did]

192. His vote + her vote + new voters in the GE + Independents + some disaffected Republicans will get...

Dems the win. Remember, some of these republicans are clearly voting for Clinton so that she will be the nominee. Any Republican votes for Obama seem to be change votes. They don't want Bush for another 4 years.

[NJSecularist]

193. It is faulty logic to assume all of Hillary's voters will vote for Obama in the GE. n/t

[Yes We Did]

199. I didn't say all of her votes will go for Obama. I gave a not so Rosy scenario...

Read what I said. Even if he gets less than half of her votes and he gets all of his own voters plus many other variables, he should be able to win PA and OH and any other state she won.

[Leftist Agitator]

178. Hey, I have a better one:

If Queen Hillary doesn't win by a 30 point spread, it's over!

:rofl:

[Yes We Did]

185. And yes Vote rigging by Rendell-Clinton and Associates is in play in PA. The Obama team understands

this all too well. They will be trying to get Clinton this 20 point win.

Obama supporters had better be on the look out for Clinton and her DIE-HARD DIE-BOLD BUDDIES.

Nothing can be done about clearly Clinton districts. The machine is in play there. Vote rigging run amok to make their case to the SDs.

[NJSecularist]

191. Do you have any proof? Or is this just a conspiracy theory?

Would you like a tin-foil hat?

[Yes We Did]

194. New Jersey told PA that the touch screens that they disqualified should not be used...

These same machines are going to be used in PA. Huffingtonpost, Americablog and Rawstory all ran this story and of course you can look for this at Bradblog for more information. Of course PA said they were still going to use the defected machines. So what does that tell you?

[NJmaverick]

196. Why not just say- "If Hillary gets more than one vote, she should win the primary"?

[Skip Intro]

200. We can already write FL off if he is the nominee. MI too, probably. OH?

PA?

[Condem]

201. How the fuck do you know that, Skip Intro?

[NJSecularist]

204. We can write off Florida, most likely.

Hillary is the better candidate in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

[Condem]

206. Damn, NJ, McCain is a trainwreck. Anything could happen.

[MattNC]

230. Not Michigan n/t

[jefferson_dem]

221. You?

n/t

[Yes We Did]

217. I really have to ask this question here now... Why is everyone so afraid of "Republicans"? You all

are second guessing yourselves over those morons that bankrupted this country, who sent our men and women to war on a lie? You're afraid of these people. Dems are disaffected Republicans are ring up the tally on the Democratic side and you're afraid of Republicans.

This is why I like Obama. It's because he isn't conceding these superficial arguments to the Republicans. Her premise is that she's fought Republicans. His premise is people powered politics pushing back from all sides will crush special interest politics.

Stop with the Republican noise. They are human. They lost in 2006. What's there to be afraid of?

[Condem]

222. Great question, demdog

I doubt you'll get an answer fom any Clinton folk.

[Yes We Did]

228. thank you... lol... I know I'm not gonna get a really substantive answer. Lol. Don't know why I...

even asked.

[stray cat]

218. Hillary needs to win by large double digits to be taken seriously

[Yes We Did]

226. Really if Hillary wins PA by 10-15 and loses IN and NC then it's over!

Stop feeding this. The SDs are going to have to rule on this and they will not take this election away from the candidate that has the most elected delegates or votes or states won.

This is a mirage the media is feeding you. The goalposts have been pushed back as much as Bush's rationale for getting out of Iraq.

Clinton actually lost Texas. She never blew Obama out in OH. Remember, if she won those states big then she could fight on but if she lost one of those states then she should get out? Well the media is helping her to fight another day. She isn't losing by 700 thousand votes. If you count the caucus votes and soon that will be the case then she's been blown out by more than 1.5 million on top of the 700 thousand.

Please stop being led by the "traditional" media.

[BlooInBloo]

225. She had a 26 point lead, oh-goalpost-mover.

[NJSecularist]

229. What does it say about Obama's candidacy that he enters these manufacturing states 26 points down?

As a frontrunner, no less?

Why is he entering these manufacturing, working class states down "26 points" (as you say) if he is the frontrunner?

That tells us about a defiency in his candidacy, does it not?

[Condem]

231. And ends up 5 to 10 points down?

[NJSecularist]

234. Why does a frontrunner enter a working class manufacturing state down 26 points?

Doesn't that say that his candidacy is a bit flawed? How come he can't reach out to these states?

Nobody sees any problem the supposed frontrunner entering a state down 26 points?

[Condem]

237. I'm saying, NJ

Why does he always cut the huge margin?

[stillcool]

311. What front-runner?

You've got the wife of an ex-President with all the Democratic Party machinery backing them, and WTF happened? How the hell did this up-start put such a hurt on them?

[Yes We Did]

232. that didn't make sense. He has always entered a state down with no name recognition by comparison

Hillary should have blown him out Super Tuesday, March 4, and every red state, blue state, purple state because she was the clear inevitable candidate.

He is here and she's still wondering why he is. This tells us something about Obama. She started out with the huge name rec, cash, machine and she's lost. That he has been able to beat her on every level says that people will get used to him come the GE.

[NJSecularist]

235. He has name recognition now. He is the frontrunner.

Why does he enter manufacturing blue-collar states like Ohio and Pennsylvania down 20 points?

How can a frontrunner enter a state down 20 points? Doesn't that say something about the frontrunner's candidacy?

[yellowcanine]

258. Yes, and he will not lose by 20 points. Watch and see.

[stillcool]

316. He has 'name recognition now'?

and that makes him the 'front-runner', when Hillary was the 'presumptive winner'? So much so that she did not plan on campaigning after Super Tuesday?
And now, she is prepared to diss large swaths of the Democratic Party, and tear down anyone that endorses Senator Obama..accumulate massive debt, lie repeatedly and move the goal posts prior to every election in every state when her poll numbers drop like a lead balloon. Spin, spin, spin.

[BlooInBloo]

236. It says that he made up about 20 points.

[NJSecularist]

238. That is a dishonest intepretation.

A frontrunner should not enter important states like Pennsylvania and Ohio down 20 points. That tells you that he doesn't play well there, and it is not a good sign come the general election.

[BlooInBloo]

239. Talk about dishonest. If a candidate is EVER down a lot, it means they "don't play well"?

:rofl:

That's the stupidest thing I've heard all day - thanks!

[PM7nj]

240. You realize that people in PA and Ohio have known the Clintons for 16 years

and only started to hear the name Barack Obama about 6 months ago, right?

[stillcool]

320. and that is 'dishonest interpretaion'

your 'front-runner' status is bogus.

[yellowcanine]

257. It says he did not have the name recognition Clinton had. And Clinton was the front runner until

she started losing primaries and caucuses to Obama.

[Blondiegrrl]

268. No, that tells us that those people don't yet know Obama.

They KNOW Hillary, thanks to Billy Boy and the 8-year Clinton reign. Obama is the newcomer. A good percentage of those blue-collar and elderly people in PA are not on the Internet every day. They watch few news shows, and most likely the only newspaper they read is their hometown paper. They tend to stick with what they know, which is Clinton. Yet the more Obama visits the state and campaigns, the more they get to know the "new kid," the more they like him, and his poll numbers start to lift.

Contrast that with Hillary Clinton: The more people get to know her, the less they like her.

[WA98070]

247. Any loss of greater than 10 points and Edwards better get back in.

Hilary is "The Biggest Loser."

[Citizen_Penn]

250. Hillary cannot win - that's all there is to say

She can't win.

Her words about Obama were true about herself.

She is perhaps the most hated woman in America.

Only a fool would believe she can win the GE.



It's simply not possible.

[yellowcanine]

255. Carter barely lost PA to Kennedy in 1980 - hardly a "humiliating loss"

Carter was not going to win in 1980 as long as the Iranians were still holding the hostages and the economy was gripped by stagflation. IMO the Kennedy challenge had little to do with it and certainly not the very narrow loss in Pennsylvania.

As for the current contest, it would be good for Obama to win in PA so that things could be wrapped up more quickly. But even a double digit loss would not be that big a deal, particularly if Obama comes right back and wins convincingly in North Carolina. Still I hope he wins or makes it close. Having the Democratic primary go on this long is not all bad. It keeps the focus on the Democrats and it keeps Obama supporters fired up. Look at how many new Democrats are being registered in many of these late primary states. That would not have happened to the same extent had either Obama or Clinton wrapped things up on Super Tuesday. The gloom and doom really is not justified by the reality of the situation.

[NJSecularist]

261. He was the incumbent who refused to debate Kennedy - it was humilating.

Carter gave Kennedy no air time. He refused to debate him. He refused to acknowledge him. Kennedy won Pennsylvania anyways.

It was one of the pillars of Carter's election win in 1976 - without Pennsylvania, he wouldn't have won the election.

Incumbents cannot lose important states like Pennsylvania - it was humilating. In fact, a popular incumbent should lose no states in their re-election primaries.

[davidinalameda]

266. how many points did Obama lose California?

I'm still fairly certain that he'll carry it in November

[ericgtr]

267. Anything less than 64% the rest of this primary we gotta question Hillary's chances

let alone worry about the GE.

[ORDem]

269. Give it a rest. It's a Dem only primary, so no harbinger for the GE. Sheesh.

:eyes:

[AZBlue]

270. I'm sick of this primary results = GE results bullshit meme!

It's factually and historically false. Give it up!

[loveangelic]

273. that makes no sense.

There are 6 months after PA votes before the GE, and I don't understand why everyone thinks the way a primary votes, even in a swing state, means they would only vote for that candidate in the GE. Hillary's voters are pro-choice voters, healthcare voters, economic voters. It's not like theyre voting for Hillary because she is pro NRA, even if she does get a big chunk of the gun owning vote in the primary, shes not winning the gun vote in the GE.

PA is as reliably blue a state as Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Mchigan. Michigan is as much a swing state as Pennsylvania and polls right now show her behind McCain (more than 1 poll mind you) while Obama is winning, though barely.

I really don't think winning a swing state, even by 13 or 14 points in a Democratic primary automatically = the other Democrat cannot win the state. Especially since its a closed Democratic primary and there are plenty of Independents and republicans who probably didn't switch over for the primary. I do think the Democratic party will be united and will vote for Obama despite what polls say now, because right now some people are feeling bitter that their favorite is not winning...

[4_Legs_Good]

275. LMAO

Sorry, that is just too funny!

David

[zulchzulu]

276. It's about delegate count and not who won the state

Obama is going to secure at least 75 delegates. A national matchup against McSame in the GE is completely different than the primary season. Obama will win North Carolina with many delegates and as the races finally end, he could be within 100 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

Without a doubt, if the Clintons were running against McCain, MANY Democrats would sit it out while MANY Republicans would be empowered to vote against TWO CLINTONS. That would be the worst scenario of the Democratic Party.

Relax. Obama is the nominee and will win in November.

[BzaDem]

277. This post has nothing to do with delegates.

It is about the GE. If Obama loses to McCain in November, you aren't going to be able to cry "delegates delegates delegates."

[zulchzulu]

279. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote

The primary season and its nominee are chosen by delegates. You can pin states won if you want, but that means a lot less than delegates. Obama's lead in delegates is nearly insurmountable. In states where Hillary was ahead in polls by upwards of 25%+, it got wittled down to single digits in weeks as well as completely obliterated.

The race against John McCain is a completely different strategy as well as Obama is poised to completely trounce McCain once that campaign starts in earnest. There are many ways to take McCain down.

Having the Clintons running against McCain would not only destroy the Democratic Party but would also empower the Republican base to come out in droves to vote against them. It would also bring negative coat tails and I would suspect many Democrats would not join in grassroots efforts to get out the vote.

[Bullet1987]

278. NJSecularist...if you think Clinton will have a much better chance in the GE

then you haven't been paying attention to her campaign which is in shambles. Both Clinton and Obama will have a tough fight on their hands. Let's not forget that Obama COULD have lost by 20-30 points. If that happened...THEN we'd need to worry. PA is a big Clinton state like OH and always has been. But Obama has a much better chance of carrying PA in the GE than Ohio anyway.

[JeanGrey]

281. It doesn't matter! His lead cannot be overcome

[intaglio]

296. A-a-and We're off

The first "Obama looses because he hasn't agained more than 15% on Hillary in PA"


YAY, I've been waiting to see a Clinton fan post this

[SoCalDem]

297. "we"....

:rofl:

thanks for your oh-so-sincere-concern :rofl:

[Hepburn]

300. Interesting OP....but you forgot....

...to add this: :sarcasm:

[stillcool]

301. Twisted logic...

Primary = Most Delegates = Winner.

Here's your front-runner...

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=17&num=16150

HILL TROUNCING RIVALS IN N.H. & OHIO
By IAN BISHOP
January 31, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton has blown past her primary rivals in the 2008 kickoff state of New Hampshire, and bests the field of White House hopefuls in the swing state of Ohio, new polls show.

Clinton's poll bounce comes on the heels of her announcement that she's running, and her much-publicized first campaign foray into Iowa this past weekend.

She had enjoyed a high-tech campaign rollout, featuring a video announcement of her candidacy and three nights of Web chats with supporters.

"We had a great first week and we hope it is a sign of things to come," campaign spokesman Phil Singer told The Post yesterday.

Clinton has jumped out to a 15-point lead in New Hampshire over her leading rival, Barack Obama, 40 percent to 25 percent, the new Survey USA poll shows. Former Sen. John Edwards stands at 23 percent.

Hillary Clinton: Is the Democratic Nomination All Hers?
She doesn’t have the nomination prize wrapped up just yet, but the paper and ribbon are handy.

By Richard Sammon, Senior Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter
October 22, 2007
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/Hillary_Clinton_Is_Democratic_Nomination_Hers_071022.html

Hillary Clinton’s lead over her Democratic rivals is starting to look formidable. The N.Y. senator is overshadowing the other presidential hopefuls, pulling way ahead in the polls, in fundraising and in organization.

The media are starting to refer to her as the presumptive nominee, a characterization that must make the other candidates feel frustrated.

CLINTON HAS 33-POINT LEAD
By GEOFF EARLE
October 4, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton has jumped to an astounding 33-point lead over Barack Obama, topping her main rival among every major slice of the electorate and widening a dominating advantage she has held all summer.

Clinton got support from a full majority for the first time in any national survey about the Democratic presidential field. She is backed by 53 percent in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll.

Obama follows far behind, with 20 percent, and John Edwards has 13 percent.

"I think it's pretty well done, don't you? All over but the voting," said Rep. Tom Petri (D-Wis.), when asked about the poll
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10042007/news/nationalnews/clinton_has_33_point_lead.htm

May 8th, 2007 at 13:15:24

Poll: Clinton pulls ahead of Obama
http://rawstory.com/comments/31343.html
Agence France-Presse

Hillary Clinton has taken a 15 percentage-point lead over fellow US Senator Barack Obama in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, according to poll results published Tuesday...

October 3, 2007, 1:45 pm

By Dalia Sussman

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton far outpaces her main Democratic rivals to handle a range of issues, and she is considered the strongest leader and the most electable – forces that have helped her widen her lead in the race for the Democratic nomination, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Mrs. Clinton has anywhere from a 30-point lead to a 51-point lead over Senator Barack Obama to handle health care, the economy, the war in Iraq and the campaign against terrorism, the poll found.

Poll: Hillary Ahead In South Carolina
By Eric Kleefeld - August 22, 2007, 10:35AM
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/08/poll_hillary_ahead_in_south_carolina.php
New polling from Rasmussen has Hillary Clinton beating Barack Obama in the South Carolina primary, with 38% for Hillary against 30% for Obama, with John Edwards at a distant third with 13%. Hillary and Obama are even among black voters, a demographic in which Obama needs a strong majority in order to win. Among whites, Hillary leads with Edwards in second, and Obama far behind.

Iowa Poll Shows Clinton Ahead By 29 Percent
http://wap.nbc5.com/detail.jsp?key=251931&rc=ln_ne
10/08/2007 -- There's a new poll out in the all important state of Iowa that shows presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton ahead by 29 percent, with John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama not far behind.

Clinton leaving Obama in the dust in latest state poll
Friday, August 17, 2007

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/08/17/MNG7RJV1E1.DTL&type=politics
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, bolstered by an aggressive campaign organization in California, has amassed a whopping 30-point lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama - and enjoys more support among likely voters in the state Democratic primary than all of her Democratic presidential rivals combined, a Field Poll released today shows.

[NJSecularist]

303. Well..

Primary = Most Delegates = Winner.

False. Only when you reach the 2024 delegate threshold are you the winner.

[stillcool]

307. hmmmm...

when was the last time a candidate reached 2024 Delegates? Of course Hillary is so far behind she can not catch up.. But...spin away and have a beautiful day.

[NJSecularist]

310. The threshold set for the Democratic nomination in 2008 is 2024

It varies every year.

It doesn't matter if Obama has more delegates than Hillary. Nowhere in the DNC rulebook does it say anything about the nominee with the most delegates must win the nomination if they have not met the designated threshold.

[ProSense]

323. And your OP argument is still nonsense. Hillary can't win the primary, her

negatives have climbed, and she has yet to be vetted on a growing list of dubious financial deals and ties, but you're worried about Obama's chances? Do you have any idea what the Repubs will do with that foot that's permanently in Bill's mouth?

Currently, there are two candidates. Obama is the better of the two, and has a far greater chance of winning the GE than Hillary.

In fact, I believe he will crush McCain.




edited missing word

[NJSecularist]

325. For the most part, Hillary has been vetted. n/t

[ProSense]

326. You've got to be

joking?

Now, video is floating around of Ed Rendell praising Farrakhan.

[NJSecularist]

327. Dick Morris? Seriously?

March Rich has already been beat to death. Mark Penn is no longer her chief strategist.

Norman Hsu has already been beaten to death, much like Rezko.

[ProSense]

328. Dick Morris? "Norman Hsu has already been beaten to death, much like Rezko."

So you're saying the RW will not try to use Rezko?

Does Mark Penn still work for Hillary?

What about the other people on the list?

What about Ed and Farrakhan?

You are spinning circles trying to justify faulty logic of your OP.

[redqueen]

305. I can't imagine how this could get more bizarre after tomorrow's primary...

but I expect it will.

:crazy:

[Name removed]

309. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

312. Anyone who can gain 10 points or more against a national figure in less than a month

can win the general election. Obama has already proven he can win.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

314. Nope.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

315. Sorry for the kick.

[LSK]

318. Is McCain on the ballot tomorrow?? ?

:shrug:

[mrJJ]

329. Moving the GoalPosts again?

Rasmussen 03/24 - 03/24 690 LV 49 39 Clinton +10.0
PPP (D) 03/15 - 03/16 597 LV 56 30 Clinton +26.0
Franklin & Marshall 03/11 - 03/16 294 LV 51 35 Clinton +16.0
Quinnipiac 03/10 - 03/16 1304 LV 53 41 Clinton +12.0
Rasmussen 03/12 - 03/12 697 LV 51 38 Clinton +13.0
SurveyUSA 03/08 - 03/10 608 LV 55 36 Clinton +19.0
Susquehanna 03/05 - 03/10 500 LV 45 31 Clinton +14.0
Strategic Vision (R) 03/07 - 03/09 600 LV 56 38 Clinton +18.0
Rasmussen 03/05 - 03/05 690 LV 52 37 Clinton +15.0
Rasmussen 02/26 - 02/26 820 LV 46 42 Clinton +4.0
Quinnipiac 02/21 - 02/25 506 LV 49 43 Clinton +6.0
Franklin & Marshall 02/13 - 02/18 303 RV 44 32 Clinton +12.0
Morning Call 02/09 - 02/17 302 LV 45 31 Clinton +14.0
Quinnipiac 02/06 - 02/12 577 LV 52 36 Clinton +16.0
Keystone Poll 01/08 - 01/14 286 RV 40 20 Clinton +20.0

[mrreowwr_kittty]

330. Carter did not get "whupped" because Kennedy was a better candidate

He got beat because St Ronnie's handlers made a deal with the Iranians to hold the hostages in exchange for weapons.

[NJSecularist]

331. kick

Hillary is well on her way to a 10 point win. We need to start questioning Obama's GE chances. John King is saying that Hillary and her campaign will start making the Dukakis argument about Obama. I think that would be a particularly good strategy. These numbers in PA are pretty bad. It looks like Obama won't even come close.