a fact is a fact Obama is electable Cllinton is not

[gabeana]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/23/2417/55984/47/501352
Electability
by kos
Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:27:53 PM PDT
The Mountain West has huge growth potential for the Democratic Party, which is why the DNCC is in Denver this year. Colorado is leading the way and is definitely a winnable state ... with the right candidate at the top of the ticket.

Rasmussen. 4/16. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (3/17 results)

McCain (R) 43 (46)
Obama (D) 46 (46)

McCain (R) 50 (52)
Clinton (D) 36 (38)



Obama makes Colorado competitive, Clinton kills it for us. And that's not just relevant at the top of the ticket. We have a top-tier Senate race in the state, and you better believe Mark Udall is better off with Obama at the top of the ticket than having to make up a 14-point Clinton deficit. Throw in CO-04, which is already on the DCCC's target list, and once again, it's clear why having Obama at the top of the ticket is so helpful to the Democratic Party not just at the presidential level, but down below it as well.

Same goes for another Red state we can flip with the right candidate (that "right" candidate being Obama): North Carolina:

Rasmussen. 4/10. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (3/20 results)

McCain (R) 47 (42)
Obama (D) 47 (51)

McCain (R) 51 (50)
Clinton (D) 40 (34)



Clinton might make this one competitive, but it'd be tough. Obama immediately makes this a top-tier pickup opportunity in a state that McCain can ill-afford to defend. We also have a potentially hot Senate race and at least one solid House pickup opportunity (NC-08), both of which would benefit from 1) having the state be a presidential battleground, and 2) having a competitive candidate at the top of the ticket.

What about those "big states" that Clinton thinks only she can win? How about California?

Rasmussen. 4/16. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (3/12 results)

McCain (R) 43 (38)
Obama (D) 50 (53)

McCain (R) 42 (39)
Clinton (D) 47 (46)

snip
And somehow, despite the fact she runs behind Obama in the general, the supers are supposed to overturn the will of the primary electorate and spur intra-party civil war on her behalf? Is she really that narcissistic?

Apparently so.
there are more state comparison in the link, go read it worthwhile




The GOP would rather face Hillary Clinton:

The Republican Party in North Carolina said Wednesday it's launching a television ad calling Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama too extreme for the state, despite the objections of GOP presumptive nominee John McCain.

The advertisement raises the scepter of Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright, beginning with a photo of Obama and Wright together and a clip of Wright's contentious remarks about America.

"He's just too extreme for North Carolina," the narrator says in the 30-second spot.

McCain can complain, but it's naïve to think that this ad is being run against the wishes of McCain's strategists. If they thought Obama was the weaker candidate, they would stand aside and let him more quickly end the primary contest. Yes, regardless of who ends up the nominee, the GOP benefits from us still fighting out state-by-state primaries and caucuses (even though caucuses don't count and are in states that don't matter). But what's more important to the GOP, if they have any control over it, is getting the weaker opponent for McCain. Hence, the ads attacking Obama

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/23/175352/744/424/501984