State by State, Obama and Clinton Stack Up Differently Against McCain

don't put Washington in the Obama category

Obama and Clinton basically tied in Washington in the non-binding primary that was held 10 days after the caucus vote. Obama "won" the caucus vote by a 68-31% margin, then finished barely ahead of Clinton in the primary 50% to 49.6%.

Barrack Obama's 11 biggest wins WERE ALL CAUCUS STATES in which 88% fewer voters select each delegate. Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate. It's kind of sad how Barrack Obama demanded Hillary quit the contest two months ago and then reaped the reward of sympathy after Clinton fought back from such a cowardly stance. that the Obama camp had taken in demanding Clinton quit.

http://www.alessandromachi.blogspot.com/

GO OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama is the best politician I've ever seen! Read his books, vote for him!

He is genuine, Clinton's not.

Vote for change, vote Obama!!

If Clinton's nominated, then I'm not voting - DONT LET HER OR McCain FOOL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reality of Obama vs Clinton

At the end of the day, there is not a dime's worth of difference between John McCain and Hillary Clinton on the issues that voters are most concerned with. Iraq- Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, and didn't acknowledge it was a mistake until Obama railed off 11 straight wins. Not even after John Edwards admitted it was the biggest mistake of his life. John McCain voted for it and wants to continue with it. Barack Obama ran for the US Senate because of the bungling of the war by Bush and the Congress. McCain and Clinton voted for the PAtriot Act, Obama opposes it. McCain supported NAFTA, a treaty that Bill Clinton signed. When the race comes down to a real Republica, ( McCain ) and a fake Democrat ( Clinton ), the Republican wins every time. That's why Barack Obama will beat John McCain, because there is a real difference between the two, not the case with John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

Independents and young voters will sway this election

Everyone seems to forget that obama has the lead without the big states. How many of clintons voters aren't going to vote for obama if he is the nominated, maybe he will 30%. Take 30% of the voters off of both clintons numbers and obama's numbers. Obama has brought in more than enough young voters to make up plus for the 30% loss in clinton voters. Can clinton say the same thing, No way in hell. Lets put it this way, I am an independent in Pa. I have talked to a lot of independents across the country as my work takes me everywhere. Of those I have talked to they all feel the same as I do. Obama gets nomination, I vote for obama, Clinton gets nomination, I vote for mcCain or I don't vote.

I think the "Catch-22 for Superdelegates" post hits the nail on the head. The events of this year have pointed out flaws in the Democratic primary process. This is not Obama's fault, and I do think he would be an OK candidate and president, even though he is not my top choice. But because of the emphasis on low-voter caucuses, Obama's primary strength in states that he can't win in November, and, of course the Florida/Michigan fiasco, the Democratic nominee may not be the best person suited to beat John McCain.

That being said, I think we are extremely lucky this year that all three of the final candidates, Obama, McCain & Clinton, are well qualified for the job.

It doesnt matter who wins

Our two greatest presidents of last 200 yrs Lincoln and Kennedy have so many coincidences that it makes me realize that God governs the affairs of men.

the real divide is coming

It's only March, 8 months away, even 8 days is a long time in politics. Your analysis is too early.

My hunch: Even before reaching the 2000 mark, superdelegates weigh in for the sake of unity, & go for the numbers leader Obama.

All hail unity, the Dems go all out to court disgrunted supporters, count on Bill to give performances. The Dems, when attacked by the Republicans and conservatives, will herd and rally around. The polarization you see now between the 2 Dem candidates will be nothing compared to between Republicans and Dems. It's gonna be worse.

United?

I find it striking that Obama makes a better argument for the nomination, and Clinton a better argument for winning the general election. She has won, or is going to win crucial swing states by large margins. (Missouri and New Mexico by less compelling margins) Obama has done well in the caucus states...hotbeds for fanatics, and in the South where large percentages of Black voters are carrying him. Does anyone expect Idaho or South Carolina lighting up blue on election night? As a Virginian, I cannot see Obama carrying my state against McCain...or for that matter Hillary Clinton. The Chesapeake Bay is the largest natural port on the east coast of the continent, the Pentagon is here, McCain's pro-defense spending will carry my state. The fact of the matter is that the folks voting for Hillary Clinton cannot bring themselves to vote for Obama (Hispanics and Blue Collar voters who probably have a preference for white politicians). If Clinton gets picked over Obama, and this alienates the black vote...will it really matter? She has proved she can win without them is these swing states, and most of black voting block is in the South where Republicans rule. Clinton is a divisive figure, however Obama is a coin toss. We saw this past week how "Change" takes a back seat to the U.S of KKK A. and what a pity that the first blunder of the Obama campaign can't even be used by Clinton as she would be characterized as a racist or attacking Obama for his religion. She has to rely on the media to keep stirring the pot, then again when your opponent is busy destroying himself....

Unstoppable Force? Obama + Clinton

Is there any analysis somewhere of the impact of a Obama-Pres + Clinton-VP ticket? If the superdelegates are supposed to be making a "pragmatic" choice -- but must be concerned about overruling the popular vote results of their respective states, and if, as former President Bill Clinton said a joint ticket would be an "unstoppable force" -- then, is it not unthinkable that a Obama/Clinton ticket would have the best chance of beating McCain in the most states/electoral votes possible? Is there a way some superdelegates -- or Pelosi, Gore, Edwards, and Dean -- could broker such an arrangement?

After Tuesday's speech, Obama, as Richardson said, is the better choice for Commander in Chief. But will Bill Clinton accept being merely the vice-president's spouse -- (what would that be -- "Second Genteman"?)

Also, is there an analysis yet of the impact of Richardson's endorsement, perhaps in states like Texas?

2008 as 1972

In a poliical year that, by any measure, should provide a Democratic landslide, 2008 is shaping up to be reminiscent of 1972. As Sen. Obama emerges as the candidate Democrats will be compelled to nominate for president, the bright flame of his honesty, intelligence, and charisma is beginning to dim. Many white moderates and liberals have felt that 2008 was the year to elect our first African-American president. His campaign was decidedly un-racial, and designed to bring together all the competing interest groups together under one epoch-making tent. This was a response from decent, well-intentioned people to a decent, well-intentiioned candidate. Pastor Wright's comments have sent a bone-chilling message to many of these people. Rightly or not, many people no longer have faith or trust in Sen. Obama. This reflects a major structural collapse in Obama's support. One can't help but look back at Sen. McGovern's similar collapse in 1972. This collapse was fatal and resulted in Richard Nixon carrying 49 states. Despite the Nixon landslide, Democrats retained control of both Houses of Congress. It's difficult to see how Obama can reintroduce himself to the American people after this orgy of prolonged Democratic primaries, verbal assaults between the Clinton and Obama camps, and confidence-shaking revelations about Pastor Wright. 2008 may be a replay of 1972.