Clinton puts Louisana in play (-7), Obama loses by 16. Clinton has "surprising" strength in LA

[jackson_dem]

But wait, didn't Obama win the Louisiana primary 57-36? Yes he did. This is a classic example of what many of us have been saying: primary demographics are very different than general election demographics. This will not be lost on the supers. Unfortunately for us if Obama wins, two of the three pillars of his coalition decline as a percentage of the vote in the general election. In other words, if general election demographics applied to the primaries instead of being up 1.4% in the popular vote (2.6% if you take the Jeb Bush/Katherine Harris view) he would be down double digits, at least -15...

To put the LA numbers into context Kerry lost the state by 15, although Clinton carried it twice. LA has 9 electoral votes.

-snip-

When questioned about the fall presidential race, nearly 49 percent of poll respondents chose McCain against Clinton, who was the pick of just under 42 percent. The rest were undecided. Against Obama, McCain picked up nearly 51 percent support, compared to 35 percent for Obama and 14 percent undecided.

-snip-

Pinsonat said he was surprised how much support Clinton received from voters.

"I don't know that she would carry Louisiana, but McCain would certainly have to come in here and campaign to win it. It's certainly not a cinch," the pollster said.

White voters made much of the difference. Clinton had more support from white voters than Obama received in the poll. In head-to-head matchups against McCain, Clinton received just over 26 percent support from white voters, while Obama received only 16 percent support from the white voters surveyed.

http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/wwl041408tpmccain.64361a64.html

[GarbagemanLB]

1. In other news, the Gallup poll shows Obama increasing his lead over Hillary 51 to 40..

[Joe the Revelator]

2. So this means that Obama could win in NY and CA with larger magins then Hillary since

"primary demographics are so different". Kind of takes away one of her bigger talking points.

[jackson_dem]

6. No. The shift hurts Obama. Clinton's groups expand in the general election, O's contract

Louisiana is a prime example. Read the exit poll, which did not include a question about income although given the margin it is fair to assume he won across economic lines in Louisiana. He won blacks 86-13 (about half the primary electorate) but lost 58-30 among whites. That is no problem for a Democratic primary in the South. That doesn't work in a general election.

[Joe the Revelator]

16. Ah, I see, your theory only works if it helps Clinton

I get it now, this is all schtick from you.

[jackson_dem]

22. No, it is called reality

There will be half as many blacks, as a percentage, in the general election and less "Starbucks" voters as a percentage. Obama would be losing by 11 if the black vote alone was in the primaries what it will be in the general and if you add the latte factor Obama would be down at least 15 with ge demographics.

[Joe the Revelator]

31. I have to say I'm shocked it took you this many posts to bring up race

its all part of your schtick.

[jackson_dem]

36. O would be the first nominee to win despite losing whites, Latinos by double digits

That is fine for primaries but that is a huge problem with the general election. Anyone interested in winning in November, rather than fulfilling a cult fantasy, has to factor this in as I am sure the supers will. Why do you think they have not shut this down? They could end this tomorrow if they wanted to. They obviously have some concerns about Obama's electability and this is probably his biggest general election liability.

[Joe the Revelator]

50. It has little to nothing to do with his race and everything to do with the way Hillary has framed

the last month.

She wants to give everyone a chance to vote, and the SD's are going to humor her a little more in order to be able to unite the party. When you have a nominee, with no "I wish we would have let ______ vote" then the healing can begin.

[jackson_dem]

52. I hear many Obama supporters say that but what is the motivation for that?

Why would the supers care about her feelings? If she loses she becomes another Kerry. She would no longer be the political giant she has been for the past seven years. Why would they risk dividing the party, waste time that could be used raising money and campaigning against McSame to raise money to campaign against each other, all for the sake of assuaging the feelings of someone who will become pretty irrelevant if she loses?

If they are going to shut this down they have to do it now. If she wins PA she will win IN and then this will go all the way to June. After IN/NC come WV on 5/13 which she will win big and then she will win at least KY--big time--on 5/20. That would take us to June for PR, SD, and MT.

[Joe the Revelator]

58. They don't care about her feelings, they care about being able to unite the party once this is all

over. They care about the bitter enders who won't leave Hillary until she drops out, and they want them to feel like she was given every opportunity to pull out a miracle that they know has no chance of happening.

[jackson_dem]

61. The problem with that theory is if they don't shut it know this will go to June

Why should she quit when she will win most of the remaining contests, including WV and KY big?

[Joe the Revelator]

64. Because she will have still lost the pop vote, the delegate race and states won

If you don't win anything you're a loser. In fact, if you don't win the delegates,you're a loser.

[jackson_dem]

66. If it continues she has a good shot at winning the popular vote (including FL)

[Joe the Revelator]

79. But we're not including Florida

The rules are the rules Jackson, and we're going to play by them.

[jackson_dem]

82. The DNC won't but will it be counted in the court of public opinion?

If Obama's margin comes from not counting Florida that will be a tough case for him to make, especially if it can be proven he had a role in shutting down a re-vote there (the case is much stronger in Michigan where we know Obama cronies killed it).

[Joe the Revelator]

91. It won't be a tough case for him to make, in fact he's already put that one astern

People with more then 2 brain cells understand that Florida was never meant to count this year. Even Hillary said so, but you know that.

[bain_sidhe]

27. The size of the margin wouldn't help in the Electoral College

I'm not sure I buy the OP's argument in its entirety. But s/he does have a point for consideration. OF COURSE the Dem nominee will take those deep blue states. The question is whether the difference in demographics between the primary and the g.e. would cost swing states.

[jackson_dem]

32. Probably. If Obama was a strong candidate he would be able to win across the board

He is flawed, as is Clinton. The difference is Obama's flaws will be maximized in the general while Clinton's will be reduced. I am only talking about demographics. This does not even get to the things the rethugs will use to "teach" America about the "real" Obama and make him the new Dukakis.

[bain_sidhe]

42. I waffle on this

For the most part, though, I think media hostility to Clinton will cost us more states than Obama's flaws will. It's the excruciatingly close states where the MSM makes the real difference.

[jackson_dem]

46. The MSM will be against any Dem nominee, though. Just ask Kerry and Gore

[jackson_dem]

47. The MSM will be against any Dem nominee. Just ask Kerry and Gore

The MSM love affair with Obama will end the moment he gets to 2,024. They are building him up to tear him down.

[bain_sidhe]

53. Yes, and they still have their fangrrrl crush on McSame

but they seem to really relish tearing down Clinton. I've never seen anything like it, and I thought Gore was the worst I'd ever seen. I knew they didn't like Gore, but so many of them seem to HATE Clinton. It's really scary, in a way.

[Hawkeye-X]

3. In other news, the primary election is NOT over, and GE polls are still irrelevant.

Keep trying, jackson_dem - you'll get there, EVENTUALLY!

[Cant trust em]

4. Interesting to note, but I'm really not interested in polls

it's not like they've been shown to be tremendously accurate this cycle anyway.

[goldcanyonaz]

5. But, but, but... He won there.

:rofl:

[jackson_dem]

11. Obama is a joke in the South for a general election

(with the exception of one NC poll that right now looks like an outlier). He won in the South during the primaries but that was with 85-91% black support in contests where blacks accounted for about half the electorate. In the general election the AA vote is cut in half as a percentage of the vote. That means 21 point wins in LA can turn into 16 point losses because Obama gets only 16% (that is not a typo. 16%. That is what the "inspiring" Obama gets.) of the white vote in LA in a general election.

[goldcanyonaz]

17. Obama is who the GOP has been waiting for. His supporters have no idea, but they will

come November.

I just hope they haven't set up some suicide club.

[jackson_dem]

24. He is a wet dream for them. They couldn't create a better opponent for them

"Obama is who the GOP has been waiting for" :thumbsup:

[Wes87]

7. K&R

[AtomicKitten]

8. She can't win the nomination so this is moot.

[jackson_dem]

25. This is news to Obama and the superdelegates. Another "netroots 'fact'"?

[AtomicKitten]

34. FACT: Obama's delegate lead is insurmountable.

:hi:

[jackson_dem]

38. So why is he still campaigning in the PA primary? Does he want to divide the party?

:mad:

[AtomicKitten]

40. Because Hillary doesn't have the good sense and grace to drop out and accept her defeat.

That's why.

[jackson_dem]

48. And that has what to do with Obama? Why hasn't he begun the GE if he has won the nomination?

[AtomicKitten]

93. Better question? Why is she still in the race? She can't surpass him in delegate count.

She is wishing and dreaming about a superdelegate coup d'etat that just ain't gonna happen. How do I know that? Because I believe her official SD count since SuperTuesday is zero, Obama's is some 72. Clue phone for you and your candidate.

[BeyondGeography]

9. The Suns are in the playoffs

so at least you're rooting for one team that has a chance to make it to the finals.

[jackson_dem]

12. Good one

:thumbsup:

[tekisui]

10. -7% in early polls=Strength, and in play! Obama's got stregth in PA!

[jackson_dem]

14. No, Kerry won Pennsylvania as did Gore and Clinton twice

Apples and oranges. A Democrat should be ahead in Pennsylvania by a comfortable margin, like Clinton is. This is especially the case for "new" candidates in a change year. That Obama can't beat McSame right now should sound alarm bells ringing...

[kwenu]

13. Sorry. It's just not a very convincing argument as to why Hillary should be pole vaulted over Obama.

The facts still haven't changed. Hillary is so far behind she can't catch up with Obama and she won't lead in delegates or the popular vote after the primaries and even with FL and MI thrown in for her just for shits and giggles.

[jackson_dem]

15. She is minus -1.4% in the popular vote w/FL and -2.6% without it

Let's count all the votes and see what happens.

[kwenu]

30. We don't have to. The percentages you cite are calculated from millions and millions of votes.

I guess we'll have to read the fine print when looking at your statistics because she still can't catch up without an unforeseen and nearly impossible landslide in several populous states. If she is behind even .01% she still won't have an argument to justify extraordinary action on the part of superdelegates and even in that case her argument is weak without the pledged delegates. Again and again and I'm sure I'll say this again in the future, it's about the math. Unless he drops out, she's done.

[indimuse]

18. k&R!

The MSM has downplayed the effect of Barack Obama's fundraising speech at a San Francisco last week... Along with the revelations about Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright, his remarks in San Francisco will haunt him not only in the upcoming primaries in PA, IN, Kentucky, and West Virginia, but also in the GE against John McCain, IF he gets the Democratic nomination.


Barack is Unelectable!

[abbyg8r]

19. Well, that may be so but....

he's clearly not as unelectable as Hillary. She can't even cut it in the primary. :)

[jackson_dem]

26. Who was more electable? Gore or Dukakis? Clark or Kerry?

[Cant trust em]

23. What do you mean they're downplaying the effect?

It's all they've been talking about for the last four days. They really proved me wrong. I figured it would have fizzled by now.

[totodeinhere]

20. More spin from the Clinton camp.

When Clinton won primaries in New York State, New Jersey, and California, they said that this shows that Clinton is a stronger general election candidate than Obama. But of course that's nonsense because just because Obama lost primaries in those states that doesn't mean he would lose those very blue states in the general election.

But now you are turning that logic around. You are saying that primary politics are different than general election politics. Of course that true, but that's the exact opposite of what the Clinton camp's line was a few weeks ago when she won those three states I mentioned. You are saying that just because Obama won the Louisiana primary that doesn't mean he will be the strongest candidate there in the general election. You are directly contradicting what the Clinton campaign was saying just a few weeks ago.

So this is nothing more than hypocritical and desperate spin coming from a losing campaign.

[jackson_dem]

29. The difference is Obama won on racial lines. That doesn't fly for him in the general

Do the math. Obama won Louisiana with 86-13 among blacks while losing whites 58-30. Blacks were about half the primary vote. They will be a quarter of the general election vote. In other words, Obama reached 43% overall solely via the black vote in the primary. In the general the black vote only gets him to 21.5%. This is a problem when a candidate lost whites almost 2:1.

Clinton's wins come with broad support that cuts across racial and ethnic lines, like every other Democratic nominee's wins did during the primary era. Many of Obama's wins are reliant on this racial disparity (including ALL of his southern wins and NC will likely be added to the list) in Dem primaries versus the general election as well as affluent, well-educated folks making up a bigger share of primaries--and especially caucuses--than they will in the general election.

[Cant trust em]

21. but more Northern states like Iowa that have little black population

and little history of race struggles are more likely to be solidified by Obama. Iowa is a perfect example of that. He's also more likely to pull over states like North Dakota, Wisconsin, Colorado, New Hampshire and Indiana.

I found two electoral maps online a while back and I can't find them now. If I dig around a little more I'll send them on.

Thanks.

[jackson_dem]

33. He has no shot in IN but does in the other states you mentioned

The difference is they are tiny states. ND, WI, CO, and NH combined have 26 electoral votes. Pennsylvania has 21. He would have to win three of the four to offset losing Pennsylvania, a bad proposition. It never makes sense to trade away one state by gambling to win three out of four or to sweep them. North Dakota is like Louisiana for Clinton. I doubt they will ultimately win it but Obama could force McSame to spend time and precious resources defending it. Too bad it has only 3 electoral votes.

[Cant trust em]

37. Based on the map I'm looking at

Pennsylvania is still blue. Not as solid as with Clinton, but still blue. It's tricky to compile any of this data right now when Obama and Clinton are busier with infightin than they are bashing McCain. I believe that when we have a night and day comparison between us and the GOP, then it won't be a contest at all. Right now when the differences are slight it's a toss up. When we're up against GWB & his cohorts it will be a much different poll.

[jackson_dem]

39. I think Obama has a solid shot at taking Pennsylvania in the general

Although I would put his chances at 60% and Clinton's at 80%. What really concerns me about Obama is Ohio and Florida. He is a joke in Florida. If he is the nominee Florida, the fourth largest state, goes from being a swing state to a lock for McSame.

I agree that the results now are skewed by party in fighting but the relative difference between Clinton and Obama is significant and unaffected by the battle since both suffer from it. I think many Obama supporters are underestimating McSame. Even if we do win the general election it would be by at best 6-7 points. Keep in mind McSame has the msm behind him and the myth of McSame is very alluring to many swing voters. Our job is to get the truth about the real McSame out for the GE. Every Democrat must be hammering this home to every person you know: McCain=4 more years of Bush's failed policies.

[Cant trust em]

44. I'm a cult member, so take this with a grain of salt

but I think that Obama does have some kind of ability to bring people over who wouldn't normally vote blue. Clinton gets core democrats, people who I think that Obama will likely get in the GE as well. If there's anything that we've seen in this cycle is that Obama can make comebacks and with time he can make gains where we thought it was previously impossible. After August if/when it's just Obama vs. McCain America will get to see first hand what this guy and our party can do.

On a side note, Steve Nash is by far my favorite player in the NBA. That guy is a magician.

[jackson_dem]

49. That is certainly plausible and we have to factor in Obama would have unlimited $$$$ for a general

I can see Obama winning. I just believe the odds of him winning are significantly less than Clinton's and that is why I support her now that Edwards is out.'

I agree, although I like Amare better. I thinks folks are underestimating them. They are 2 games out of first right now in 6th but had they not made the Shaq trade they would have won the West. The Shaq trade caused a 3-6 bump in the road but has proven to be a good move. They are better than their seeding suggests. Who do you see coming out the West? I believe it is between the Suns, Spurs, Lakers and perhaps New Orleans. I am not sold on them winning the West given their inexperience.

[Cant trust em]

54. I always have a reverence for point guards, so they're usually my favorites

I don't follow the NBA as much as I used to since I don't have cable anymore, but I think it's tough to go against the Spurs. So solid in every aspect of the game. Experience, fundamentals, size, guard play.

[jackson_dem]

57. I agree which is why acquring Shaq was such a big deal

I think Shaq is is what will get them over the Spurs hump. Shaq helps in the paint and he brings 4 NBA championships, 5 NBA finals, and 8 conference finals worth of experience to the table.

[Cant trust em]

62. 5-7 years ago the battles he had with Duncan were epic

can today's Shaq still compete? Why did Shawn Marion get shown the door? This is probably old news, but I need to get caught up somehow.

[jackson_dem]

68. He is not what he once was but he is still a solid player

His role right now is similar to Kareem's role in the late 80's with the Lakers. If Shaq can provide 15 points and 10 boards on a consistent basis in the playoffs in 25-30 minutes that will be enough (he is averaging 13, 11 with the Suns but that includes a rough start). A big thing his presence does is prevent the opposing defense from double teaming Amare. Since Shaq has joined the team he has become unstoppable, averaging 29 points a game. Shaq's value doesn't just show in his numbers but Amare's (I think he was averaging 22 before Shaq).

Marion's contract was up at the end of the year and because he had chemistry issues because he did not like being #3 on the Suns they decided to get rid of him now for something instead of losing him in free agency and getting nothing in return. The team's chemistry would also improve immediately with him gone. Another factor was I believe Steve Kerr concluded they could not win it all playing "small ball" and needed a big center for the playoffs.

[Cant trust em]

72. small ball barely works in college where the big men aren't quick

the guards can run around and hit their 3's. In the NBA you've got guys like Nowitzki who are 6 10 and can run the floor.

[jackson_dem]

73. Yeah and in the playoffs especially it becomes more of a half court game

That is one reason they kept having great regular season records but could not reach the NBA finals.

[Cant trust em]

75. Sounds like Duke in the last 5 years. I'm a college fan.

I'm going through withdrawals right now since the tourney just ended. 3 weeks of paradise for me. The NBA playoffs are cool since there's a game practically every day for two months.

[jackson_dem]

77. I am the opposite but I follow the tourney. wtf happened to Duke this year?

[Cant trust em]

97. Duke has had a bad pattern for the last few years

Good talent has left early, leaving the team depleted for March. When Josh McRoberts made his ill-advised trip to the NBA, it left Duke without some necessary inside presence. Later in the year when their jump-shooting went cold, that was the end of the team. They had no inside presence.

[MattBaggins]

28. Before I even clicked

I said to myself let's see what jackson dem has to say today about the AMV (Allmighty White voter).

Was I to be disappointed? Of course not.

[jackson_dem]

35. They make up three out of four GE voters. Are we to be fools and ignore that?

Just as it would be idiotic to ignore a candidate if he struggled with women, wright? This is not a veiled slap at Obama. I don't believe he will have a problem with women in the general when he is running against a male rethug. The reason he is doing poorly now is because he is running against a woman with the same policies. Just as some blacks are using race to break the tie so are some women (as did Mormons for Romney earlier).

[MattBaggins]

41. Nice use of Wright

you and Tellurian most likely get along splendidly.

Once upon a time long long ago we had people willing to fight for a cause. Once upon a time enough people stood up for Rosa Parks and said they were going to rock the boat instead of just telling her to accept reality and get back to the back of the bus.

I am the type who wants to figure out how to appeal to those white voters who will listen and stand up to those who will not. I have to assume you are the type that would have told Rosa to give up trying and go sit down in the back of the bus.

[jackson_dem]

45. Don't lecture me on race. I have probably seen more racism than you will ever know

Well then you don't give a fuck about winning the general election with that attitude. Let's just write off entire blocs of voters and see if we can win! :eyes: He isn't doing this poorly because of racism. Was Biden black? No but Obama crushed him among whites. Obama is simply a flawed candidate and that is why he loses, not just whites, but Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, GLBT, Jews, Hindus, and presumably also Buddhists. He is surviving this based on a black bloc vote of 17-3/18-2 that will not exist in the general election.

[MattBaggins]

55. Don't presume to lecture me on what I give

a fuck about.

I have no where indicated that I wish to write them off. I said appeal to them as we can without sacrificing our core democratic principles. You are the one suggesting we write off both Obama and the black vote; since you are a defeatist and unwilling to work and sweat to get a black man elected president. I will not stick my hands in my pocket, scuff my feet and mumble "aw shucks we just have to give up on him cause.. well you know the white guy".

Perhaps the truth in this is might just be that I have more hope, optimism and faith in the white voter than you do.

[jackson_dem]

59. You keep making it about racism. Was Biden black? Why did he loses whites so badly?

Louisiana is a case in point. It is one of only three states with a minority governor (and only two were elected to the governorship). It isn't racism that is explains why Obama is struggling in Louisiana.

[MattBaggins]

65. Well why did you suggest that Obama

only wins because of a "black bloc"? Is that not suggesting that it is about race? Why do you insist on using "wright" for "right"? When you use that kind of cheap; "look mommy a scary black man" tactic, people are going to suspect that you might just be race baiting.

If you really want us all to believe that you are just concerned with getting the white male vote; you are really being disingenuous if you actually expect us to believe that Hillary will fair any better.

We are going to have to fight for this election. I'm sorry that I can't buy your convoluted illogic of why we should support the second place candidate over the one who is winning. Even with Fox-Jazeera struggling daily to knee cap Obama; I see no chance of him losing the nomination so we will just have to work for that white vote instead of stomping our feet and screaming about how he can't win.

I suppose you will have to learn what the kids these days say. Something about "don't hate, participate".

[lastliberalintexas]

43. Louisiana is not in play

It matters not which candidate we choose. There are legitimate reasons to argue for and against Clinton, but being able to win Louisiana is not among them.

[jackson_dem]

51. It is with Clinton. Keep in mind Bill Clinton won Louisana twice

And Gore didn't do that badly there (he lost by 7).

[gcomeau]

56. Oh... you really do *not* want to go here.

We're not stupid you know, if you want to look at "putting states in play" as a criteria for electability we're going to look at all the states. Let's see... taking a quick browse through the latest results over at electoral-vote.com:


vs: McCain:

Alaska: Clinton -25, Obama -5. Obama puts it in play, Clinton slaughtered.
Coloroado: Clinton -12, Obama 0. Obama puts it in play and runs even with McCain, Clinton trailing badly.
Iowa: Clinton -15, Obama +4. Obama puts it in play and is winning it, Clinton blown out by McCain.
Montana: Clinton -18, Obama -5. Obama puts it in play, Clinton blown out by McCain.
North Carolina: Clinton -11, Obama 0. Obama puts it in play and is tied with McCain, Clinton is trailing badly.

And I'm not even counting Nebraska and North Dakota and Texas just because the last polling is 6 weeks old, but if I did...
Nebraska: Clinton -27, Obama -3.
North Dakota: Clinton -19, Obama +4 Ouch.
Texas: Clinton -7 ... "oooh, -7, that's really good for a Democrat in Texas"... Obama -1. Running a single point behind McCain. In Texas.

But hey, let's keep going... let's look at say...

Michigan: Clinton -9, Obama +2. Oh... that's not pretty.
Oregon: Clinton -6, Obama +6. Hey, there's Clinton turning blue states red. Nice. Let's go for a two-fer:
Washington: Clinton -3, Obama +5.
Connecticut: Clinton +3, Obama +17. Connecticut. She put freaking Connecticut into play vs. McCain in the last poll there.

Another old one that we could count if we wanted to:
Hawaii: Clinton +4, Obama +30.

How do you even begin to think it's a good idea to call people's attention to which states are and are not put into play by the candidates when you're supporting Clinton? What thought process leads you down that road? Obama puts a good third of the red states in the country into play for cripes sake and you're going to try and make an argument on one poll in Louisiana?

Go look at this map:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Brown is where Obama outperforms Clinton in states at least one of them can put into play against McCain.
Pink is where Clinton has the edge on Obama.

There is pink in there... if you look hard enough... be patient, you'll find it... oh! there it is! Down in the corner there while the brown spreads all over the country.

[jackson_dem]

60. Do the electoral math. How many electoral votes are NB, AK, MT worth?

[gcomeau]

67. Glutton for punishment aren't we?

I listed a few more states than that. Just from the ones with newer polling data:

Alaska: 3
Colorado: 9
Iowa: 7
Montana: 3
North Carolina: 15

Michigan: 17
Oregon: 7
Washington: 11
Connecticut: 7

So to answer your question, that would be... 79 EVs.

And if we throw in the older polling data:

Hawaii: 4
Nebraska: 3
North Dakota: 3
Texas: 34

...bringing us up to 123 EVs. Shrug that off. And that's only where Obama has significant advantages over Clinton vs. McCain in in-play states. Make me factor in everywhere he has 3 or 4 or 5 point edges over her. Go ahead. It'll be fun.

[Citizen Kang]

94. dont even bother with facts gcomeau

when someone is as delusional as the OP author is, logic and facts do not apply.

[bain_sidhe]

95. Uh oh

Look at these two:

Obama vs McCain
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr15.html

(for those who don't want to click)
Bottom Line: McCain wins
Electoral Votes: Obama 237 McCain 277 Ties 24


Clinton vs. McCain
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr15.html

(for those who don't want to click)
Bottom Line: McCain wins, by MORE
Electoral Votes: Clinton 240 McCain 298

**edited out editing error!**

[cali]

63. Ah, the irony. If an Obama poster had posted a similar

thread about a state where he was within 7 points of McCain, you would have mocked that person mercilessly. What a stupid piece of hypocritical shit this post is- just like every dump you take in GDP

[rodeodance]

69. They are too busy posting photo-croped RW photes of Hillary and yucking it up like sheepie

[jackson_dem]

74. Who are you replying to?

[rodeodance]

78. the poster above. I was referring to all the Obama fans posts of RWish ugly drinking pics

[jackson_dem]

83. I am just wondering who "ignored" is

[anonymous171]

70. Why don't we just get rid of fucking primaries then? Just let the SDs decide.

[jackson_dem]

76. We should get rid of the supers (and sham caucues) for 2012 so we are never in this jam again

No one expected this. The closest situation was 1984 but everyone knew Reagan was going to win anyway that year and the supers calculated that, even though Mondale was less electable as a general election candidate, that he was popular with core Democratic constituencies and he would help down ticket by keeping more of them in the fold.

[Swamp Rat]

71. Louisiana does not like Hillary Clinton.

She's too bitter. :D

[Quixote1818]

80. But Obama polls better than Clinton against McCain in CA and even NY. nt

[jackson_dem]

84. They both win CA easily while she wins NY, Obama loses NY (31 electoral votes)

[Quixote1818]

86. Not in the poll I saw. Obama did better in NY than Hillary. Obama also puts Virginia

North Carolina and South Carolina in play.

[jackson_dem]

88. You are looking at old polls. He loses NY in the latest one and VA by 11

Although the latest SC poll shows him putting it in play. However, that is from 2/28 around the time the other polls showing Obama having muscle in VA were coming out. That was about when Obama peaked as far as electability goes. A poll for NC came out a few days ago and had him tied so NC is still accurate for him.

[gcomeau]

87. Aww... now here's your dilemna.

You have 2 options here. You can accept that the Marist college poll is actually somehow valid... and that Hillary, the Senator from New York puts her own historically solid blue giant state into play for the Republicans. Which is so incredibly horrifying it doesn't bear dwelling on seeing as that would be based on the entire state knowing her pretty much as well as they possibly can at this point and THAT turning one of the biggest most solidly blue states into a battleground state in the GE.

Or... you can go with option 2, the poll was off and should be thrown out. Which I think should be done... but your call. Only then, we roll back to the Quinnipiac poll which has Hillary winning NY by 10... but Obama winning it by 11. Meaning he is marginally outperforming Hillary in her own home state.

Neither of these options is really going to turn out well for you.

[jackson_dem]

89. You are ignoring the damage Spitzergate did to the Dem brand, especially short term

I think both will rebound as escortgate recedes in memories.

[gcomeau]

92. Doesn't change your options.

So... if you're arguing there's been short term damage to the democrats over this that will be reversed going forward I take it that means you're rejecting the Marist college results as tainted?

So we roll back to the last poll, and Obama edges her out in NY, her own state, by a point.

Of course you would probably say that poll falls in the Spitzer window as well (I would). So we go all the way back to before Spitzer? He resigned March 12... the last poll before that was Ras on the 11th. And... Obama beat her by a point against McCain in that one too. (C 50, McC 38... O 51, McC 38)

So... where else do you want to try to go with this one? I mean we can try to go back to February to give Clinton her edge in her own state back again, but that's getting a bit ancient... no?

[malik flavors]

81. Guess this kills Clintons argument that winning in the primary means your favored in the general

[bobthedrummer]

85. That's what happens when Mark Penn continues to run POLL'S and "advise" HRC's campaign

"Know Your DLC: Mark Penn" (active thread started 4-15-2008)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5515506

[jackson_dem]

90. Do you know your DLC? Guess which candidate has more DLC support?

[mckeown1128]

96. -7 isn't putting a state in play.

Besides if you want to brag about states in play polling shows Obama within 3 points of McCain in Texas, Nebraska, Ohio 5 points in Nebraska and Missouri.

Polling shows Obama winning and Hillary losing OR, WA, NV, NM, CO, SD, VA, NC, and IA.