Clinton 70 electoral votes better than 0bama, 0bama gets crushed 324-205

[jackson_dem]

Clinton vs. McSame



McSame 278, Clinton 229, 31 ties.

0bama vs. McSame



McSame 324, 0bama 205.

The key swing states

Clinton wins Pennsylvania and ties in Ohio. Her value is not in winning red states (although she ties in Tennessee and puts Arkansas into play) but in keeping the blue states and competing in the battleground states. 0bama loses all the battlegrounds (Florida, Penn., Ohio, Michigan, and even second-tier battleground states like Missouri) and a blue state like New Jersey (15 electoral votes). Massachusetts is in his column but the last two polls have him tied or leading by a mere 2 points against McCain there. Massachusetts is worth 13 electoral votes.

Path to victory?

Clinton is tied in Ohio. That state, which she would very likely win if we nominate her, alone would bring her to 249 electoral votes. She would need to gain another 21 electoral votes to win. 0bama is losing by 119 electoral votes. There is no path for victory for 0bama right now given the large deficit he faces.

Source: electoralvote.com

[NJSecularist]

1. It's an awfully big assumption to assume that Obama will lose both Michigan and Pennsylvania.

And he certainly won't lose New Jersey.

[TwilightGardener]

2. On January 3 , 2008, the Democratic Presidential Primary season

was a delegate contest. 3 months later, guess what? IT STILL IS!

[jackson_dem]

5. and that has what to do with being unelectable in the general election?

[TwilightGardener]

13. What's the matter? Are the rules of the game not workin' out for ya?

Time to find a new yardstick? A new technicality? A new interpretation? Hillary was counting on a delegate race on the morning of January 3. She was counting on a delegate race on Feb. 5th. What could have gone so horribly wrong?

[americanstranger]

26. Yep, new metric.

All the other ones spell 'FAIL.'

Sniff, sniff... Smell that?

That's desperation.

- as

[jackson_dem]

29. How did Kerry get nominated? Clinton in 92'?

Considering electability is a thought crime in the brave new 0bama world?

[TwilightGardener]

39. Gallup sez Obama is more electable against McCain than Hillary, 59-30%. 2 to 1.

[jackson_dem]

40. How many electoral votes does that push poll question have?

Of course people are going to say the front-runner is more electable. That happened when Clinton was the front-runner and did on the rethug side previously with Giuliani. What counts is how folks say they will vote and how it breaks down by state since that is how we elect a president.

[TwilightGardener]

44. "Of course people are going to say the front-runner is more electable..."

That's why he's the frontrunner, dipshit! :rofl:

[Forkboy]

53. The brain power on display by JD is stunning, isn't it?

I'm awed. :rofl:

[Tellurian]

83. When are you moving out of Mom's basement?

[Forkboy]

88. When are you moving out of Clinton's ass?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

190. She will as soon as Obama starts a "race war".

:evilgrin:

[populistdriven]

191. when she has her next BM, in about 12 weeks

[jackson_dem]

55. Naive

Ever hear of Dukakis, Mondale, and McGovern?

[goldcanyonaz]

68. I had no idea that Mondale only won MN and DC in 1984.

http://www.270towin.com/?gclid=CNCNypuSuZICFQlLgwodghaMcA

McGovern only faired 17 electoral votes. MA and DC.

[jackson_dem]

71. Yeah but they kicked tail during the primaries!

That is what counts! YES WE CAN win without Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and the entire South!

[PseudoIntellect]

87. Seven months into the future, election day will still not be here.

That's how irrelevant electoral polls are right now, especially when we haven't even debated McCain, yet.

Once we have McCain to debate face-to-face, I'm confident that either candidate will do well and win it all.

Until then, post electoral votes all you want. They're not part of the primaries, though.

Saying Obama will not win ANY of "Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Massachusetts" is pretty extravagant at this point.

[jackson_dem]

99. PI read what you just said

In order for any Democrat to win s/he has to win at least three of the first five and both NJ and MA...I am not voting out of "hope" for a miracle.

[PseudoIntellect]

116. Today, Obama polled slightly better than Clinton in MI and NJ.

And he has a good chance in MO. He was 2.2 down according to RCP in PA. Clinton was down 0.4.

OH seems out of reach, okay. But the rest seem doable, especially since they're all within 2% or so of McCain.

Regardless, it's a little too early to be looking at polls right now and deciding whether or not candidates will poll the same until the GE. Arguments can be made from either side; NY and CA become swing states with Hillary, for example, but were more comfortably won by Obama according to some recent polls.

[jackson_dem]

127. MO? Forget it with Obama

Obama was down by 15 in the latest (3/24) poll there. Clinton is down by 9. The opposite should be true given Illinois' proximity to Missouri.

Ohio is a big deal. It is the 7th largest prize. That makes his margin for error less in the other states and this is before word gets out regarding his role in killing re-votes in Michigan (8th) and Florida (4th). It is very possible that Obama loses Florida, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio. Maybe he can squeeze a slim win in Pennsylvania like Kerry did but I worry that Obama will be a lot weaker after the rethugs attack him. He shouldn't be losing this badly when he is "new" and untouched by the rethug attack machine...His trend is downward. He used to be far more electable the Clinton when he began his campaign in 2007.

NY and CA are safe either way. Both win NY 51-40 right now (based on three polls, the latest of which was on 3/18) and both win California (three polls, 3/16 was the latest), although Obama wins by 13 and Clinton by 9 (this is where Obama's popular vote lead comes from. He wins by bigger margins in blue states but he loses the battlegrounds. Clinton wins by less in blue states but competes where we must in order to win while retaining all the blue states).

Right now the only way I can see Obama winning is if the economy completely tanks over the summer.

[JayFredMuggs]

175. When was the LAST time Mass voted for a Rethuglican for Prez?

[GoldieAZ49]

159. they were frontrunners, right? In front of the oncoming bus

:rofl:

[GoldieAZ49]

158. no matter that the GE will have an additional 100 million + voters

:rofl:

[FatDave]

138. OK, let's consider electabiility then, shall we?

Clinton will:

• Bring out an otherwise complacent republican electorate
• Give all independent votes to McCain

Obama will:

• Have no effect on republican turnout (they're indifferent or crossing over)
• Pick up a lot of independents

-

[jackson_dem]

146. What data is that based on?

Those are Obamite myths. If they were the case the maps above would have Obama winning by 119 rather than losing by 119 and doing 70 electoral votes worse than Clinton.

Rethugs will come out regardless of who the nominee is. Ask kerry, Clinton, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, Humphrey...

Whatever Obama currently gains with indies is offset by the extra he loses among Dems that Clinton doesn't. It is foolish to trade solid Dem votes away for a gamble on indies. Obama's indie appeal will go down once the rethugs go after him and his negatives go up. It is shocking he is doing this poorly without even having been touched by the rethugs...

[Strelnikov_]

163. "foolish to trade solid Dem votes"

It's foolish to call these 'solid Dem votes' if they are so easily swayed because their candidate did not get the nod.

[jackson_dem]

193. Kerry won 89% of the Dem vote. Gore did even better

They are solid. The problem is Obama bleeds more Democratic support than any national Democrat since Walter Mondale. How did he do?

[Alter Ego]

170. It is not an "Obamite myth" to think

that Hillary as the nominee will unite the Republicans like Krazy Glue.

[jackson_dem]

192. Clinton and Obama get about the same rethug support against McCain

They will vote like they always do.

[FatDave]

189. Exit polls, turnout statistics, and a dash of common sense

The exit polls from every primary contest so far has showed Obama with a wide lead among independents. Independents are important. It is independents that swing elections. This is simple fact. They're something like 30% of the electorate. We cannot win without them. Cut & dried, end of story.

Also, compare the turnouts of the two parties this primary season. We stomped them. We are energized. They are not. They're suffering scandal fatigue and the scorn of the rational two-thirds of the nation. And they have a candidate the base of the party is less than enthusiastic about.

So how shall we exploit this amazingly favorable situation? I know! Let's run the most divisive figure in the entire party against them! You know, the person they've absolutely fucking hated for 16 years! Yeah, that's a good idea!

Lastly, I'll leave you with this:




You're entitled to your delusion, but don't expect me to hop on board.

[jackson_dem]

195. Primaries aren't the general election

General election polling shows Obama doing about 10-12 points better right now with indies (which means most of the indies voting for Obama in the primaries will vote for Clinton in the general if she is the nominee) but he offsets that by losing an unusually high number of Democratic votes. In other words, the gambit is to trade Democratic votes for indies, a stupid strategy by any measure since the Dems are far more likely to ultimately vote your way in November than indies.

Turnout for Dem primaries was much higher in 1988 too. Was Dukakis "polarizing"? Was Mondale? Gore? Kerry? Carter? McGovern? Humphrey? The rethugs will show up like they always do because any nominee will have high negatives by November--which is why it is foolish to put stock into Obama's current performance against McCain. His negatives have yet to get anywhere near their peak because the rethugs have yet to touch him. Right now he does only as well as Clinton in the popular vote match up and substantially worse in the electoral college. How bad will he be as a general election candidate by November if nominated?

Who cares about that poll? Those polls are based on popular perception, not an examination of data. 99% of those people probably couldn't say who is performing better in the key states that will decide the election, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. That poll is as irrelevant as the "who was the greatest president ever?" ones, unless you think the past 40-50 years have produced the best crop of presidents ever.

[FatDave]

197. This is the best the guy who said "what data is that based on?" can do?

OK, point by point I suppose.

General election polling shows Obama doing about 10-12 points better right now with indies

Thank you for backing up my point.

(which means most of the indies voting for Obama in the primaries will vote for Clinton in the general if she is the nominee)

It does? Why? Or in the words of a prolific poster on DU, what data is that based on? Just because they like Obama does not mean they lean democratic. Obama's actually picking up a few republicans. You keep bringing up his negatives (without mentioning them, I assume you mean he's black and is freinds with a crazy black preacher), but you really need to consider Clinton's. She is simply not well liked. Not by republicans, not by independents, and frankly, not by about half of the democrats. Imaginary snipers in Tuzla ain't exactly helping her cause either. There is absolutely no reason to think that independents favoring Obama right now will favor Clinton in the general. It's a ridiculous argument that you conjured up out of thin air. They're independents. They could go either way. By definition.

but he offsets that by losing an unusually high number of Democratic votes.

Who are these democrats who will not vote for Obama in the general election? You mean the sore-loser-cut-off-their-nose-to-spite-their-face Clinton supporters who are threatening not to vote if Barack wins the nomination? Is that the strategy now? Blackmail your way to the nomination? If Obama wins the nomination (which is likely), by the time the general election rolls around, Clinton will have endorsed Obama and the everybody will have made nice. Just like the Deaniacs eventually fell in line and voted for Kerry, the Hillary supporters will fall in line and vote for Obama. Oh, there might be a handful, but they'll be an insignificant minority. Frankly, neither candidate has to worry about the democratic base voting for them in the general. We're all democrats, and while emotions are high right now, we'll do the right thing in November. I won't have any problem voting for Hillary if she wins the nomination.

Was Dukakis "polarizing"? Was Mondale? Gore? Kerry? Carter? McGovern? Humphrey?

Well, Mondale and Dukakis were awful candidates. They were terrible speakers and uncharismatic as hell, and unfortunately, that shit counts more than we'd like it too. Gore was a good candidate, and technically he won despite a constant beating from the media. Kerry was not the greatest candidate either. Smart guy, good debater, but again, kind of a cold fish personality. Carter was beaten down by the Iranian hostage crisis, stagflation, and had to face a charismatic republican opponent. I'm too young to remember Humphey and McGovern, so I can't comment on them directly. I seem to remember hearing that Humphrey's nomination didn't go over too well though.

The problem is, it seems like democratic primaries are usually a race to pick our worst possible candidate. And despite your best efforts, it looks like this year we might actually have a contender.

Who cares about that poll? Those polls are based on popular perception, not an examination of data.

Well, there's the whole "wisdom of crowds" thing to consider of course, but beyond that it just seems obvious. Imagine McCain going up against Obama in a debate. The old man status quo vs. the young "the system is broken" candidate. Hillary vs. McCain? Hillary: "Iraq was a mistake" McCain: "You voted for it."

(Edited for formatting.)

[indimuse]

153. you are wrong!

Every repuke I know..(I know alot..I live in Palm Beach CO my entire family..ug!)they will sleep over night to vote AGAINST Obama..hence REv Wright..and more!

[Tellurian]

179. I'm sure they're not too happy their votes won't be counted..

because Obama stood in the way of resolution..

[FatDave]

187. WTF are you talking about?

Now Obama is somehow stopping republicans from voting too? I'm worried that you have officially gone off the deep end.

[JayFredMuggs]

176. Exactly TRUE!

This is the reason people are voting for Obama in the primaries. They know Hillary can't change the red-neck, religious right, or independents' to favor her over McSame.

[GoldieAZ49]

157. apparently winning the nomination is all that matters, they don't care if they win the GE

It will still be a Historical win :crazy:

[NDambi]

177. OMG..get some help! You're so transparent...

[democrattotheend]

3. Welcome back

What's with misspelling Obama's last name?

[jackson_dem]

101. Thanks

I am glad to see your positive reply (I thought it was sarcasm at first!). Due to that I will stop using the "0". :hi:

[americanstranger]

4. A whole week off...

...and you couldn't come up with any new material?

- as

[jackson_dem]

7. Scary week: Clinton led McSame and 0bama was competitive a week ago

Now 0bama has tanked and Clinton is losing. It is becoming clear we will face a tough fight and we need to nominate someone who gives us an opportunity to win that fight.

[americanstranger]

10. A 10-point lead is tanking?

I guess you didn't see the polls during your exile.

- as

[jackson_dem]

14. Wait I was wrong. 0bama was never closer than 61 electoral votes

Still going from 61 down to 119 down in a week is pretty bad.

Your point? Dukakis won the primaries in 1988. 0bama is tanking as a general election candidate.

A week ago 0bama lost 292-231.

[americanstranger]

15. Irrelevant.

Nice try with that Electoral Vote thing, though. I've noticed that the Clinton campaign is trying to float that idea.

Too bad the primaries are measured by pledged delegates.

- as

[jackson_dem]

31. Winning the White House is "irrelevant"?

:wtf:

[americanstranger]

42. No. Electoral votes in a Freakin' primary

are irrelevant.

But, hey - keep on grasping at those straws. Whatever helps you deal.

Nice try.

- as

[jackson_dem]

58. How does Obama beat McCain? Show us how he erases a 119 electoral vote deficit

[americanstranger]

67. Why should I even bother?

You're not listening, just trying to prolong a thread built on a flawed premise.

I'll just watch you continue to spin. It's kind of entertaining, in a really irritating way.

- as

[bhikkhu]

64. He was ahead in the first part of March - link

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

Not that old data is better than new, but there it is.

[jackson_dem]

72. Pastorgate anyone?

[bhikkhu]

85. Perhaps, along with the kitchen sink. It is odd though...

The popular vote projection splits are going the other way...perhaps it is an accumulation of lag in polls in smaller states, as much of the data goes back to February.

[jackson_dem]

103. Did you think he was going to be coronated?

Every presidential candidate will get attacked. The question is whether they can withstand it. We know Clinton can. Can Obama?

One reason for the disparity is Obama runs up larger margins in blue states. Whether we win a given state by 15 or 20 doesn't matter if we lose the swing states.

[bhikkhu]

106. No, a complaint wasn't really intended.

But at the other link for electoral votes - http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Mar31.html - I think a good case could be made for a very successful swing state campaign, for either candidate.

[jackson_dem]

118. Show me how Obama wins

Let's assume he wins the 205 electoral votes he already has. What other states would he pick up to get to 270 in your view?

[bhikkhu]

125. Going by this map (same data, different method)

http://www.270towin.com/2008_polls/mccain_obama/

Obama starts with 192 electoral votes. There are 145 accessible votes in the swing states, and many of the "weak republican" states may also be in play. Hillary starts with a more or less similar scenario.

So it is all very possible, and certainly no one will be asking for a coronation in the GE. One thing that comes to mind is a time-lapse progression the electoral-vote site put together showing the run-up and finish of the Bush-Kerry battle. Whole regions swung from one party to another, and states switched many times in close polling. The maps are enough to formulate a strategy and get to work....

[jackson_dem]

128. Let's look at the states

I don't put much stock in the leaners unless they should be blue or red, in which case it is a sign of strength or weakness (TN is a strength for Clinton for instance). If they are swing but leaning they will probably be lost.

The big swing states are Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. They account for 85 electoral votes, almost a third of what is needed to win. Obama is weak in Ohio and would probably lose Florida and Michigan too. Pennsylvania is the only one where he has a shot right now. With him being shut out of the South it is hard to see him making it up. The next tier of swing states of medium size are Missouri, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. He has no shot in Missouri. He leads barely in Minnesota and is competitive in Wisconsin. I would say he would probably take Wisconsin right now like Kerry did in another close one. This takes us to 303-235 for McSame. The problem is that since the rethugs start with the entire South we need to win the lion's share of swing states and keep the blue states. Obama keeping NJ and MA, worth a combined 28 electoral votes, is an open question and the money used to defend them would be money we could have poured into Florida and Michigan. We have little margin for error and with Obama he loses to many swing states to be a strong candidate. Give McSame just NJ and it is 318-220 for him. This is without looking at the small states and how they shift.

The only way I can see Obama winning right now is the economy totally tanking over the summer.

[bhikkhu]

132. A good analysis, but there is too much time left.

Again, watching the electoral vote map in the run-up to Kerry-Bush was a gut-wrenching exercise. States went from strong blue to strong red, then back again, whole regions shifted from one party to another; and there was no point where the actual result was well reflected in the polls. If we were a month out even I might work up a sweat over the grim picture, but there is just too much time, too many of the polls are old, and the campaign has really not even begun.

I will continue to follow the data with interest, but I don't yet see a strong case for the point of the OP - that Clinton should be our nominee because she is more electable by electoral projections.

[jackson_dem]

133. I agree there is plenty of time

I am of the opinion that Obama's electability is probably inflated now. The rethugs have yet to attack him. If he is 119 down now how far behind will he be once the rethug attack machine goes after him? I look at these numbers and see Clinton, being far more defined, as relatively steady while Obama is a wild card with more downside than upside.

[SwampG8r]

162. one bad case of Clinton Projection Syndrome

or CPS
it is evidenced by taking facts and reversing them to fit the argument
thereby framing it to your advantage

ie:
obama's supporters keep repeating their new rules for super-delegates = trying to game the rules at every opportunity to defy the democratic process and constantly move the goalposts
obama lies= snipergate
obama is in with the RW = press conference kissy faces with the MSM and Sciafe
obama is bad for the party = endorse the republican over obama
obama is tearing the party apart = tear the party apart with attacks on fellow dems by carville et al.


i think you see the pattern of CPS and probably have examples of CPS in action.
but
it isnt all bad,you can help
a small donation to obama 08 will help to return the center of this horrible dysfunction to chapaqua NY where hopefully it can be quarantined and cured.


leave hillary alone!!!

[merh]

166. Bullshit

stop with this nonsense -

Electoral Math as of 03/06/08: Obama 280, McCain 258

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258

[Oilwellian]

109. We were so afraid...

you guys were laid off due to budgetary problems.

[democrattotheend]

198. I thought you were going to stop using 0bama

You said that when I welcomed you back.

[Hawkeye-X]

90. They try to figure out how to recycle old shit to make it look new.

But guess they didn't QUITE figure out that shit is shit, no matter if you put a lipstick on it and a hat...

Hawkeye-X

[thevoiceofreason]

6. Welcome back, Jackson. Wasn't the same without ya.

What can we do to make you go away again? Just almost kidding.

[acrosstheuniverse]

11. I don't like Jackson...

the President. He was a racist who caused the infamous "Trail of Tears" while he was President.

I don't understand why he is on our 20 dollar bills.

[jackson_dem]

22. Obama does!

Every president was a racist or did some racist things (now that Obama supporters have officially designated Bill Clinton a racist). Jackson was born in 1767, not 1987. He has to be measured by the times he lived in (just like Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, and the rest do).

The "Trail of Tears" occurred under Van Buren although a bill passed under Jackson, which he supported caused it. Did Jackson alone do it? No. By the standard of his time he was a moderate on Native American issues. He was even attacked as being too soft on the "Indian question."

I am curious. The favorite president of the "judge past figures by 2008 standards" crowd is FDR. How can this be so? FDR had his own "Trail of Tears" and was a racist. Why does FDR get a free pass among this supposedly principled crowd while every American hero from 1776 up to FDR doesn't?

P.S. Jackson adopted two Native American children. Odd for a racist, right? He was culturally prejudiced against Native Americans, but virtually all whites were at the time and the cultural superiority animus cut both ways. I don't think he was a racist per se against them. His policies toward the tribes was motivated by concerns about national security rather than racism. As to blacks, it is fair to say he was racist against them.

Barack Obama on his Democratic presidential heroes

We are the party of Jefferson, who wrote the words that we are still trying to heed - that all of us are created equal - that all of us deserve the chance to pursue our happiness.

We're the party of Jackson, who took back the White House for the people of this country.

We're the party of a man who overcame his own disability to tell us that the only thing we had to fear was fear itself; who faced down fascism and liberated a continent from tyranny.

And we're the party of a young President who asked what we could do for our country, and the challenged us to do it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_speech_to_virginias_jef.html

[kid a]

8. Clinton is SO unelectable.

[democrattotheend]

9. What's with misspelling Obama's last name?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

12. I thought I smelled something.

[NJSecularist]

16. LOL

:spray: :spray:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[goldcanyonaz]

17. Thanks for posting this Jackson!

[Swamp Rat]

18. APRIL FOOL!

You forgot that part. :D

[Ichingcarpenter]

43. The Fool and April what a surprise!

April showers of mental piss bring May flowers of Party Bliss.

[Oilwellian]

115. ROFL Swampy

You've outdone yourself with that one. :D

[tishaLA]

19. I honestly don't see the logic of this electoral stuff

It makes less than no sense in terms of the general election OR in terms of the primaries, which is about amassing delegates.

[americanstranger]

24. Smokescreen.

Desperation move. 'Nuff said.

- as

[jackson_dem]

32. The logic=nominate someone who can be elected president

Assuming most "Obamites" want a Democrat in the White House... ;)

[tishaLA]

36. Again, you haven't shown me what one has to do with the other

We can take it as a given, for example, that WY will go R and CA will go D. So, right there, the "logic" of using the electoral map as proof of anything is obliterated.

[americanstranger]

48. He has no intention of proving anything.

Unless you want to count his showing you his ability to prattle on about irrelevancies.

He's good at that.

- as

[jackson_dem]

60. "safely assume". You need to look at the map again

In particular look at the battleground states and "safe" NJ and MA for the Obama vs. McCain map...

[bhikkhu]

20. Data is data, thanks. There is more to the picture, though.

Noting that SurveyUSA is the largest contributor to the data used for the posted maps, I went to their site and browsed a bit.

http://www.surveyusa.com/

Why the information here should be so different from the information given in the OP, I don't really know, as they are largely based upon the same data source. The SurveyUSA site does seem to support the more common position that I have gathered myself - Hillary and Obama are tied, or have a slight advantage, against McCain. While McCain has the advantage that no one has campaigned against him yet...

[jackson_dem]

34. A 70 electoral vote difference when 270 are needed is "tied"?

[papau]

37. That data also says Obama loses New Jersey by a large margin - the narrow wins to get him

over the top are a bit of a gamble -

but I am getting resigned to the idea that the party will again listen to the Starbucks crowd and we will lose the election as we always do when we listen to the Starbucks crowd.

I know that while I will vote for Obama in the fall - he has run a campaign that has ended ny monetary support and indeed any active support for his election. The absolute refusal to agree to a joint Hillary/Obama ticket - in any order - is the icing on the cake - there is no way in hell that any that I know (granted they are all seniors and unimportant to the party) will work for his election.

[jackson_dem]

46. Which is why Obama is even scarier. His 205 is on a knife's edge

Once the rethugs go after him a loss of only 5 points nationally would flip a lot of the states he is barely holding onto right now. Here is the Obama gambit: 1) "hope" he turns around and becomes competitive in the main swing states 2) "hope" he can hold onto New Jersey and Massachusetts 3) "hope" he retains his slim leads in several states. Basically it would take a tidal wave for Obama to win. The only thing that could produce that is the economy totally tanking over the next few months. Nominating Obama is a huge gamble based on every card falling exactly into place with a heavy dose of luck.

[Tellurian]

114. The economy is tanking..

The late night news announced (3rdQ) we are officially in a Depression and he has this card in the river.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5334998

[MadBadger]

51. Not what I saw out of Rasmussen Today: McCain 46 Obama 45/ McCain 45 Hillary 42

Michigan: McCain +1 vs. Obama, +3 vs. Clinton

[papau]

56. True - 500 likely voters- seems Obama's sexist campaign is helping McCain in the vs. Hillary matchup

As long as the Dem party activists see only the need to stop racism, not sexism - it appears the GOP can use that approach against Hillary

Obama has shown the way!

So now they both lose New Jersey.

Thanks, Obama.

[jackson_dem]

75. It is an outlier

Polls consistently have Obama losing NJ. This is the first one that has Clinton losing. Every other poll has her comfortably winning. Right now it looks like an outlier, but that is what you have to grasp onto when your candidate loses by 119 electoral votes as things stand right now. Over 70 replies and not one Obamite has shown us a path to victory for Obama in the general election. What does that tell you?

[MadBadger]

78. "Every Other Poll has her Comfortably winning" Do you have any RECENT ones?

A month ago doesnt count. It isnt an oultier if polling is not regularly done.

[jackson_dem]

105. 119 electoral votes. Where does Obama get them?

I already showed how Clinton can easily get to 249 electoral votes and would need only 21 more votes (with 17 likely coming from Michigan, which Kerry and Gore won. Add to that Tennessee's 11 and you have President Clinton...). What is Obama's path to victory?

[GoesTo11]

149. paths

Win OH, PA, MI, WI.
Do this by
1. Improving polls in pretty much every state after first debate w/McCain
2. Clinton throwing support behind Obama if he wins nomination.

[bhikkhu]

73. Different measures: Popular vote vs electoral projections

This site is a better measure of the uncertainty, this far out from the GE, than the OP's source:

http://www.270towin.com/2008_polls/mccain_obama/

[jackson_dem]

107. We don't elect presidents by the popular vote

Ask Andrew Jackson, Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland, and of course Al Gore...

[bhikkhu]

123. Exactly, and this whole thread is a valid concern.

[goldcanyonaz]

21. So, Obama really isn't going to win the South?

I see a whole lotta rad on that map.

[jackson_dem]

49. Apparently not. Who is the last Democrat to win without the South?

When are we going to stop shooting ourselves in the foot? We had Edwards and we still have Clinton. Nominate Obama and you give McCain the entire South right off the bat.

[MadBadger]

23. And They're Back!

[greguganus]

74. Someone piss em off so they are gone another week!! n/t

[americanstranger]

77. Or piss 'em off twice as much.

Maybe we can finagle two weeks without them.

- as

[MadBadger]

25. Rasumussen poll today shows Hillary losing in Jersey by 3 and Obama by only 1.

[jackson_dem]

35. Typical cherry picking from an Obamite

324-205 says it all.

[MadBadger]

38. Rasmussen's poll came out today...do you have a more recent poll?

[jackson_dem]

41. You have 119 electoral votes? Show us a path to victory for 0bama

[americanstranger]

45. Electoral votes were irrelevant upthread,

they're irrelevant here.

Keep hope alive, Skippy.

- as

[MadBadger]

47. Care to provide some polls to back up this map?

[jackson_dem]

62. The polls are referenced at the link

Now what is Obama's path to gaining 119 electoral votes when he loses all the swing states?

[MadBadger]

66. I see nothing at electoralvote.com, can you provide a real link or not?

[jackson_dem]

76. http://www.electoral-vote.com/ (I forgot the -)

[MadBadger]

82. The most recent poll on that site out of Jersey is from Feb 27th and it was done by Rasmussen

It had her up 11, and now shes down 3.

[bhikkhu]

89. Much of the data is old, but that is usually the case.

Anyway, all of this data is more what the game plan for the GE will be built upon, rather than coffin nails as some would like to suggest.

[MadBadger]

92. I also think once we are united by a candidate, the numbers will rise

I think the weary dems will come home once the losing candidate endorses the winner.

[bhikkhu]

104. That is a pretty safe bet.

The repugs have nothing similar to hope for, except that some new foreign enemy may strike.

[jackson_dem]

108. Why are you obssessed with one state? Obama is down by 119. 15+ won't matter

[MadBadger]

111. Just pointing out how old your data is.

[jackson_dem]

119. 270 votes are needed to win. How does your candidate get to the magic number?

Are do you realize Obama is likely to lose if we nominate another weak candidate like we did in 1972, 1984, 1988, and 2004?

[bhikkhu]

80. This is what the OP is referencing

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Mar31.html

There are two links from the main site to Obama and Hillary summaries. As mentioned, if you dig into the data another digest is less conclusive and more realistic:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Mar31.html

[papau]

54. True - 500 likely voters- seems Obama's sexist campaign is helping McCain in the vs. Hillary matchup

As long as the Dem party activists see only the need to stop racism, not sexism - it appears the GOP can use that approach against Hillary

Obama has shown the way!

So now they both lose New Jersey.

Thanks, Obama.

[MadBadger]

57. Or it was her little fib about Bosnia

[americanstranger]

61. Don't you guys ever get tired of playing the victim?

C'mon, admit it. You're as bored with the stuff you post as we are.

Admit it. you know you want to.

- as

[Unsane]

27. Wow you use a zero instead of the letter O in Obama's name. You're really cool.

No, really. You are.

[MadBadger]

28. I see you have adopted the childish strategy of using a zero for the O..how stupid.

[smartvoter]

30. The Zero Replacement is Utterly Childish. nt

[MadBadger]

33. Jackson_dino...thats you're new name. Its just as childish as your name calling.

[Yes We Did]

50. Your assessment of the Electoral math makes no sense... It's false

If Clinton is not the nominee, Obama would win those states she's won if they aren't dominant red states. This is really a grand illusion you've fallen into by way of looking at Clinton move the goal posts to suit her own needs. It's not happening.

[MadBadger]

52. There are no polls being given to back up this data, and when I challenge them with refuting polls..

The OP accuses me of cherry picking....WOW!

[papau]

63. RAS is the only poll showing Hillary doing more poorly than Obama in Jersey - but I have no

reason to believe that it is not true -

indeed those 500 likely voters seem to prove that Obama's sexist campaign is helping McCain in the vs. Hillary matchup



As long as the Dem party activists see only the need to stop racism, not sexism - it appears the GOP can use that approach against Hillary

Obama has shown the way!

So now they both lose New Jersey.

Thanks, Obama.

[Ichingcarpenter]

70. Well only because of 'Hillary's Racist campaign is helping McCain'

What a load of shit you post.............my post was just a shit response to yours.

[jackson_dem]

65. There are polls for each state at the link--which you surely know

Face it you can't construct a realistic argument for how Obama beats McCain given the existing data. All we can do if he is chosen is "hope" for "change" and hope 119 electoral votes magically fall from the sky.

[andym]

59. small typo in your source and further more hopeful analysis of the data

The links are http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Mar31.html
and http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Mar31.html

electoral-vote.com not electoralvote.com

Note the breakdown:
Clinton vs McCain

Strong Dem (74)
Weak Dem (97)
Barely Dem (58)
Exactly tied (31)
Barely GOP (24)
Weak GOP (110)
Strong GOP (144)


Obama vs McCain

Strong Dem (142)
Weak Dem (33)
Barely Dem (30)
Exactly tied (9)
Barely GOP (141)
Weak GOP (55)
Strong GOP (128)


So just counting strong states:
Clinton (74) McCain (144) Not Strong (320)
Obama (142) McCain (128) Not Strong (268)


Counting Strong and Weak states but not Barely and Tied states:
Obama (175) McCain (183) Tied or Barely (180)
Clinton(171) McCain (254) Tied or Barely (113)

The most hopeful thing about these latter numbers is that many states are in play for both Obama and Clinton which could move in their direction. even better is that these states do not completely overlap. There are actually more than 180 "Tied and Barely" if we superimpose both democrats and pick from both pools of numbers. I think the composite is 211 from eyeballing the map (taking Obama's tied or barely and adding in OH and TN from Clinton's).

The fact that both Clinton's and Obama's numbers are down is not good and probably reflects the polarization of the Democratic electorate. It would be wise for both to do something about unpolarizing the contest. Perhaps they should have a contest with the topic who can attack McCain more effectively. The winner could get the nomination :)

[bhikkhu]

69. Another good and current electoral site link

http://www.270towin.com/2008_polls/mccain_obama/

This is perhaps more realistic, being so far out from the GE. No drama, doom or gloom to this picture, as "swing" states are labeled and categorized separately.

[greguganus]

79. Let It Sink! n/t

[goldcanyonaz]

81. Like the General? No thanks.

[jackson_dem]

110. haha--good catch!

That is exactly the view many of them have toward the election. Beating the Clintons and getting their rocks off over a "movement" (which is basically the same as Clinton's on substance but they believe Obama is a messiah whose tears can cure cancer--if only he would ever cry!) is more important than keeping McSame out of the White House to many of them.

[rodeodance]

93. makes you look weak.

[bhikkhu]

95. Oh, give it a rest. Talking about polling data here.

I am happy to see mud battles and name calling sink, but take at look at what is here - construed one way or another, it is the necessary info for a game plan for the GE.

[DemGa]

84. And with a now fractured Dem base? Obama is nothing but a disaster --NT

[Hawkeye-X]

86. Oh you're still here.

That is old news - Who cares. Obama will sweep the United States!!111oneoneleventy

[rodeodance]

124. I am glad jacksondem is on DU.

[GoldieAZ49]

161. but does he do windows?

[rodeodance]

91. REC

[MadBadger]

94. Welcome Home!

I hope your second stint is just as enjoyable as the first! Oh and my sig/avatar are still here...Guess your alert campaign over at The DUmp failed.

[jackson_dem]

112. Calling Obama "0bama"=bad. Offending folks with that avatar=good

Hypocrisy?

[rodeodance]

139. You lie---there was no "campaign" And hope you are over your peeping tom days.

Welcome Home!

I hope your second stint is just as enjoyable as the first! Oh and my sig/avatar are still here...Guess your alert campaign over at The DUmp failed.

[rodeodance]

140. I find your avatar offensive to my faith. You would not do this to the Muslim faith--why

insult Catholics?

[PseudoIntellect]

96. Basically, should we decide the nominee based on who is

winning the primary season based on actual votes or based on who is doing better in polls electorally against the GOP nominee before any debates have occurred 7 months before the election.

ZERO-bama?

[bhikkhu]

100. Hoping that name snarking will not become your hallmark....

But you raise a good point. Electoral projections are valuable, but they are certainly nowhere in the rules of how a Dem candidate is selected in the primaries. This far out and prior to real campaigning, the margin of error is clearly too large.

[jackson_dem]

113. We should take all factors into account, unlike what we did in 72', 84', and 88'

[cali]

97. It's important to understand how

angry and bitter hillfolk are. Sad that they're reduced to making shit up, but understandable. The OP actually does his candidate no favors by posting his untruthful crap.

[MadBadger]

98. I know...they are posting sometimes month old data. They don't realize...

how much Hillary has taken a hit since even the week of their boycott.

[americanstranger]

102. Expect more of the same.

They really have nothing new. All they can hope to do is disrupt the board, stir shit, bite ankles.

It's all they've got.

- as

[cali]

117. We should really consider not posting responses to

such pathetic threads by certain people. This thread is a great example of what should sink.

[jackson_dem]

121. Any inconvenient truth is a disruption to Obama supporters

Just like a ____ would say...

[jackson_dem]

120. Read the thread. She has went down but remains competitive

Obama went from 61 down, within semi-striking distance, to approaching blowout territory...

[PseudoIntellect]

122. Jackson, if you're indeed correct about this, then I see absolutely no reason for

even having democratic primaries in red states. Why let the Dems in those states vote? They won't be helping much in the GE, anyway. Essentially, they don't count, anyway, right, since electability in traditional blue states is the only argument that apparently means anything.

[jackson_dem]

129. This isn't about the primaries. The map is about general election strength

[joeprogressive]

126. You are high if you think that map matters during the primary.

Once Obama picks a VP and sheds the negative campaign attacks from HRC, everything will change.

[jackson_dem]

130. Have you heard of the Republican party?

[anonymous171]

135. Do you remember the Clintons' completely scandal free years in the WH?

Yeah, I thought not. If Obama had Hillary's baggage, she would've beaten him out of the race with it already. He's been decent enough to not kneecap a potential nominee.

[jackson_dem]

141. I remember them beating the rethug attack machine over and over again

They have proven they can beat the rethugs. Obama hasn't...

Clinton could easily swiftboat Obama on race, like Obama did to her. She hasn't. If she did and it was half as successful as Obama's effort it would be over...

[anonymous171]

144. If by "beat" you mean "barely survive," yeah they sure did.

[jackson_dem]

147. 69% approval rating. That is as high as you can realistically go

Will the alleged "uniter" have an 80% approval rating is he somehow lucks into the White House?

[Hippo_Tron]

150. Bill Clinton has proven he can beat the Republican attack machine, Hillary has not

There's no such thing as a tested candidate except for an incumbent President running for re-election. Obama is no more or less tested than any non-incumbent that we've ever run. State elections aren't proving grounds for how one will do in a national election because national elections are an entirely different ballgame.

And yes Bill Clinton has shown that he can remain popular with voters on a national stage despite all of the attacks from the Republicans. Hillary Clinton has yet to show that.

[loveangelc]

131. Oh God, you're back.

[kevinmc]

134. Kerry Beat Bush the same way ..... n/t

[RiverStone]

136. Ever occur to you that the pukes want Hillary to win?

You assume every one that answers these polls who say they are Dems - are Dems. Big assumption. Some people lie to get their way.

She continues to lose ground to Obama in Dem head to head polls so we don't care anyway.

This so called poll is no reflection on what would happen to the political dynamic once Obama starts fighting in the GE, instead of against Hillary.

[jackson_dem]

145. The opposite could be true

Maybe many of those being polled who say they are for Obama are really rethugs and they want us to nominate someone who can't win battleground states and loses the entire South? That is equally as likely as your implausible scenario of a widespread poll conspiracy involving 50 states and constantly changing poll samples.

We should take into account what will happen in the GE: Obama will go down even more once the rethugs attack happen. The maps above should be the other way around since Obama is the "new" one...

[GoesTo11]

137. Wonder what a map for Al Gore would look like. /nt

[jackson_dem]

142. Good question. I know what the map would look like for Edwards...

Edwards did better than both against the rethugs and he was particularly stronger in the South than Clinton/Obama as well as in key swing states like Ohio and Missouri..

[VotesForWomen]

143. but... but.. O kicked hill's ass in UT and WY and SC, that's whatt really matters. nt

[Seabiscuit]

148. This kind of exercise is such a complete waste of time.

[bowens43]

151. not this bullshit again.....

only an idiot could believe that hillary would do better in the GE then Obama.

[rodeodance]

152. Wake up---name-calling is a bullying tactic

...not this bullshit again.....
Posted by bowens43


only an idiot could believe that hillary would do better in the GE then Obama.

[Thepricebreaker]

155. bullying tactic? What is this pre-school?

[Tellurian]

186. They pooh-pooh on bullies here..

[crankychatter]

154. Dem on Dem Primary Contests mean NOTHING RE Electoral Math

They only indicate possible magnitude of overall Democratic participation in the GE

period

nothing else, especially in a close race

I can't believe you even posted this sorry pap

You poor souls are really grasping for straws

[GoldieAZ49]

156. So Obama gets crushed in the GE

no surprise there

[CTLawGuy]

160. mere weeks ago

Obama was doing better than Clinton by these measures. what's to say that this map won't change 80 more times until the general???

and also Dukakis was totally killing Bush in Summer of '88, and look what happened to him.

[izzybeans]

164. Logic isn't a strong point I see.

[rox63]

165. We're still counting delegates, not electoral votes n/t

[madrchsod]

167. i guess the super delegates better over turn the will of the voters

and the will of the elected delegates. i`m sure hillary and others will be delighted when this happens...the dlc will stop at nothing to overthrow the dnc.

this is what it is all about the dlc against the dnc....

i read where hillary`s supporters have taken control of the credential committee so i expect challenges like they tried to pull the day before the second texas caucus...

[BeyondGeography]

168. FYI: Hillary has this little problem

She's losing and she won't be the nominee.

[Vinca]

169. IMHO, this is an idiotic premise. The Democratic vote is split

by Clinton and Obama. If you were asking the question with one Republican candidate and one Democratic candidate it would make sense. At this point, Hillary supporters are apt to say they wouldn't vote for Obama and Obama supporters might say they won't vote for Hillary. Add to that the Limbaugh sheep and you've got one, huge, invalid map.

[totodeinhere]

171. This is just one estimate from one source.

Every pollster who tracks this sort of thing has it different. This early out it's impossible to know who would be the stronger candidate in November.

[Buzz Clik]

172. This shit again? Why?

[JayFredMuggs]

178. Because the Hillary folks are now getting REALLY REALLY...

desperate!

So they want primary voters to vote out of FEAR!

Now who used that tactic in the G E in 2004?

Fact is: NEITHER Clinton NOR Obama have the lead in Electoral College polls for the General at this time, it's a tossup!

[Bolo Boffin]

173. Thinking that Obama OR Clinton would only win the states they won in the nomination?

[Medusa]

174. Wow-we have a "psychic" in our midst

who seems to know what the EXACT results of the NOVEMBER election would be.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Buzz Clik]

180. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits.

[SeaLyons]

181. K&R

Great post. Thanks JacksonDem.


:kick:

[zulchzulu]

182. Your theory VAPORIZED: Primary Elections are extremely different than General Elections

By your "theory", any candidate who lost a state in the primaries is assumed to have lost that state in the General Election.

Case in point to destroy your theory:

Bill Clinton lost Colorado, Vermont and Rhode Island to Jerry Brown in the 1992 primary. Clinton won all three of those states in the General Election in 1992.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Democratic_presidential_primary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1992

[Bonobo]

183. Nut-job. NT

[SoCalDem]

184. Obama can win without OH , FL or PA

he has plenty of money & time to swing Colorado, & Virginia & the small bits of Nebraska to do it....with EVs to spare

Any ONE of OH,FL,PA is gravy:)

[Tellurian]

185. K&R

[redqueen]

188. I was honestly looking for an APRIL FOOLS! disclaimer.

[elixir]

194. Another gem, JD. Look's like the math is working for Our Girl. Or is it a metric?

[stop the bleeding]

196. I'm stupid - so give me a minute

but according to this post both Dems lose - and that is a good thing? I don't care if you lose by 1 or 1000 you still lose.

Also is this a McLame site and if it is why in the hell are you sleeping with the enemy?

http://electoralvote.com/

[rucky]

199. We're DOMED!!!111burp11