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

Advantage - Clinton

I'm a Libertarian and would never even dream of think about considering voting for McCain, Clinton or Obama.

But Senator Clinton has a legitimate argument when she says that part of Obama's perceived strength amongst Democrats lay in states that the Republicans traditionally win and are likely to win again in 2008. Thus arguably making her the stronger candidate.

Obama's run

Maybe we can look at Senator Obama's run in a different way for once and I really think that he and his campaign have done this all along without letting the masses realize. Obama is in this to make change. The Presidency would be the icing on the cake, but the real intent is to wake us all up. His ideas are not revolutionary but are ones spoken in whispers by the people who don't understand how a political campaign is "supposed to be run". The Spike Lee idea of doing the "right thing" seems to be the real idea behind the Obama campaign. Obama scares the Dems because being truthful and showing character is not true politics. He lets it fly and doesn't check the outcome from political pollsters. Some think it has to be cynical and bare-knuckles to be a real American presidential campaign. He truly seems to be a sincere man who is acting the right way and doing the right thing. I am a 51 year old white man from Montana and I am a believer. He sets a wonderful example for us all. We have become too jaded in our lives. Things can change if we are willing to speak up and say and do what is honorable. If others want to play the old game of lying and cheating to find the end, we are as much to blame by giving up and not fighting for our understanding of what is right. Shame on you Hilary Clinton! I will move to Canada if you are elected!

Catch-22 for Superdelegates

I now think Obama has become unelectable because of his decision to stay in that church of hate for almost 2 decades. Unfortunately for Democrats, Hillary is probably too far behind to win the popular vote or the delegate vote. Will the superdelegates vote for Clinton knowing she has a much better chance of winning the Presidency than Obama, even if she is behind in both delegate and popular vote? This could easily fracture the Democratic Party. Many strong Obama supporters will feel that the superdelegates stole the election from Obama. Many would not support Hillary. I could see many Democrats voting for McCain since he's almost considered a Democrat. And many would likely stay home. "Whitey" superdelegates dissing Obama would be a nightmare for the Democratic Party.

I can't think of any red state that Bush won in 2004 that Obama could win. McCain could easily beat Obama in blue states such as New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota and Pennsylvania.

Hillary could win red states like Ohio, West Virginia and Arkansas. McCain would have a much tougher time beating Hillary. But for Hillary to win, she'll need superdelegate help. And that probably fractures the Democratic Party and causes her to lose.

It's a long time until November, but barring any serious health problems for McCain, he looks like the most likely candidate to win the Presidency.

Bryan

Obama's campaign is sweating the release of new video showing Barrack Hussein Obama not only in attendance when his racist black supremacist pastor and mentor made his vitriolic comments about America, but nodding his head and clapping his hands in approval. If Obama wins the nomination we will have 4-8 more years of republican rule.

Neither one of these two clowns - Clinton or Obama - can beat Mccain. Why is it we always nominate someone who cant win the general election?

MR. Montana

Sir, I don't think you'll need to move to Canada, however, I invite you to enumerate Mr. Obama's specific ideas. Where is that trillion dollar loophole? What specific change is Mr. Obama going to affect? I'm a 36 year old service member, deployed on the ground. I see what isn't reported. From my perspective, Mr. Obama is a wonderful man, but his ideas are perverse and anti-American. It is wonderful to believe in someone, especially on Good Friday, but remember that Government should be limited, and freedom is what you should yearn for.

Clinton without the white male vote loses the entire South including Florida. She also loses some larger States that Kerry carried because her black vote percentage is way down.

Obama loses the South, including Florida. These loses will be bigger because whites are turned off on the Wright situation. Obama does better than Clinton in the other states but the Wright aroma hurts Obama a lot in PA,MI, OHIO, MO and the mountain States.

Overall, Obama does better than Clinton but still is a loser.

The supers therefore will decide on which candidate will do less damage in the Congresional elections. This depends on the State involved. What a debate!!!

barone article

the polls are not relevant. they have been wrong all year. the simple fact is that

if the superdelegates overrule the voters, hrc will not be electable. the only

electable candidate is obama. when he ties bush, the war, and the economy

around Mccain's neck, Mccain's numbers will plummet. Right now he is getting

a free ride from the MSM.

MR. Montana

Sir, I don't think you'll need to move to Canada, however, I invite you to enumerate Mr. Obama's specific ideas. Where is that trillion dollar loophole? What specific change is Mr. Obama going to affect? I'm a 36 year old service member, deployed on the ground. I see what isn't reported. From my perspective, Mr. Obama is a wonderful man, but his ideas are perverse and anti-American. It is wonderful to believe in someone, especially on Good Friday, but remember that Government should be limited, and freedom is what you should yearn for.

EITHER WAY MCCAIN WINS IF OBAMA IS NOMINATED HE WILL LOOSE MANY HILLIARY SUPPORTERS PLUS JEWISH AND HISPANIC VOTERS, IF HILIARY WINS BY SUPERDELEGATES OBAMA SUPPORTERS WILL FEEL CHEATED AND BLACK AMERICANS WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER NOT TO MENTION THE YOUNG VOTERS WHO WILL BE ANGRY AND NOT VOTE FOR , I AM CONSTANTLY AMAZED AT HOW DEMOCRATS CAN BLOW ELECTIONS WHEN THEY SHOULD WIN THIS ONE WITH NO PROBLEM.

Likely scenarios

I think Iowa is likely to switch to Obama and possibly Nevada. Think McCain probably holds Ohio and picks up Pa maybe NJ and Del. He might also pick up Washington, Michigan and NH and might split Maine. Other than that I don't see the map moving.The GOP generic ballot is looking better, GOP Senate candidates are also trending up. Obama should run with Gov. Ed Randell- insures Pa. helps in NJ, W.Va., Del., and with Jewish voters that are fleeing Obama(helps in Ohio(Cleveland) and Florida and California. He is also a plausible President and it would be seen as reaching out to the Clinton faction. McCain does not have a slam dunk choice but Mitt Romney might deliver Nevada, Oregon and Michigan.If Sen. Cl;into somehow wins she needs to name an African American moderate to unite the party- Maybe Sanford Bishop or Harold Ford.

State by State

Always read Barone for sound 'math' and usually sound comment. Dems have a major problem; Hillary (and Bill?) strongly disliked by half of the Dems but carrying big population states; Obama enthralls the emotional voter but has now successfully alienated a big majority of white voters (his Grandma a racist like Rev. Wright?; Reagan Democrats part of the racist establishment; won't wear or salute the flag yet wants to be Commander in Chief?; etc.etc.). Amazing election year: Hillary one of the most liberal Senators becomes the 'moderate' Democrat and Obama the most liberal becomes this year's George McGovern, Gary Hart, Mike Dukakis, John Kerry. The Dems should have known better; when you see a candidates bumper stickers early on cars at colleges and high schools as well as in Hollywood, you're in trouble with the average working older voter. Again. Bryan of LA and Ed of NY; you are so right.

John McCain will be the next president.

He stacks up well against either Democrat, and the general public hasn't even really focused on McCain's life story or his war hero record as a POW yet. Believe me, it's stirring stuff. When I saw the Fox News special on McCain a few weeks ago, I wanted to stand up and salute.

Half the electorate already despises Hillary Clinton. So, she'll need to win 100% of the remaining half to win the presidency. Ain't happening.

As far as Obama, there are millions of white Democrats out there now who, because of the racist rantings of Rev. Wright, have had their deepest fears confirmed regarding what's really going on in his head. Regardless of what they're telling the pollsters right now, when it comes time to actually vote these people will vote for McCain. I suspect that the "real" race between McCain and Obama right now is about 50-41 and not 46-45.

Bottom line: It's good to be John McCain these days.

McCain verses either candidate

John McCain's moderate positions on most every domestic policy position, combined with his reliable foreign policy views will push him into the White House. Americans will blanch when in a debate Sen. McCain spells out what Sen. Obama's and Sen. Clinton's much touted "withdrawl in 60 days" proposal will mean for the US and for Iraq.

Michael Barone's comentary

This man (Barone) should be running for high office. He can say less in more words than anyone I've ever read. His entire dialog (?) could be put into about a fifth the space, and be significantly more understandable, by virtually anyone wishing to actually communicate with the general populace. I gave up after one paragraph of obfuscations. Anyone actually know what information is in this commentary?

Barone

All the super delegates must realize that their Democratic Party had been counting on making inroads in states like Colorado and New Mexico, However, the Hispanic vote would stop that if Obama is their nominee. The other block of voters that Obama can't count on is the blue coller workers which would put states like Pennsylvania in play. While Hillary is despised byalmost half of the electorate, still she would win all the blue states and may get lucky in Ohio. That would put her in the White House.

The key is Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Colorado

It is presumed that these are now the major swing states of the election. McCain is the clearly dominant over Obama in three of the four (Ohio, PA and Missouri) In the case of Hillary McCain is only dominant in one of the the four (Missouri). This gives Hillary the edge, but lets face it, it is an academic situation until they run.

I think if it is Hillary it will be a consistent election, that is a nailbighter with some states swinging by a few thousand votes.

In the case of Obama it could be a blowout in either direction.

I would give Hillary the slight edge in a general election though right now, but for the Dems it should be a judgment call based on the stronger choice in their minds.

McCain Will Win

The Democratic Party is in a mess. The majority of it believes that Obama is a mix of Lincoln, King, JFK, and RFK. It's a strange psychology that a future graduate student will make famous with a dissertation.

The party is stuck with Obama. Giving the nomination to Clinton would splinter the party. Giving Obama the nomination loses the election.

Barone article

Interesting article, but as we have seen throughout the campaign, what is true to day may not be true tomorrow. I think the whole argument about "electability" is fallacious. No one knows what events will transpire between now and November and how these events will highlight the candidates strengths and weaknesses. Look at what difference a week made to the Obama candidacy.

The one thing that does seem more certain is that McCain was probably the best choice among the Republican nominees. I don't think the others would be in a virtual tie with the Democrats, regardless of the bad publicity Obama and Clinton have received.

Bryan: the reason why

"Neither one of these two clowns - Clinton or Obama - can beat Mccain. Why is it we always nominate someone who cant win the general election?"

It's simple- your party is out of touch with mainstream America. A coalition made up of hate-filled blacks, feminists, homosexuals, atheists, supporters of crime and illegal aliens, socialists and those who wish to see America militarily weak will never come close to being a majority. These groups have taken over the Democrat Party as a means to power, but what they have accomplished is fatally disempowering the party in Presidential elections. Not only will McCain win the presidency by a huge margin, the Republicans will probably retake the House of Representatives on his coattails too.

Obama will win

Its seems odd that the some patriotic americans are now

ATTACKING Free Speach/worship

But as a proud American I do have faith the the USA will win

WORD WAR III

and big brother will not have to tape all sermans

Go OBAMA Go AMERICA

Evanston Students for Obama

Statistically biased

The current polls cannot be relied upon to determine the outcome in a general election.

As we saw in every Bush campaign, repositioning a competitor is a very important component of the final vote. Barack Obama has not been repositioned by his competition yet.

If you look at RCP's trending in August 2004, Kerry dropped 10 points (and never recovered) after the 1/2 punch of the Swift Boat ads and the Republican convention.

The Republicans are now doing research into the best ways to reposition Barack Obama. There is plenty of powder to chose from including having committed a felony by smoking smack cocaine, having a close relationship with an indicted slum lord including doing personal real estate deals together, etc.

In contrast, there was been a twenty-year attack and repositioning campaign against H. Clinton including radio talk shows, books, etc.

Taken together, when the Republican war machine goes into motion, it will have a much bigger negative impact on Obama than Clinton. In other words, the current polls are statistically biased and cannot be relied upon as a valid predictor.

Obama and the Rest of the Ticket

One thing lacking from most of the political analysis and a hugely important consideration for superdelegates is how each candidate would effect the rest of the ticket. The following states will hold closely contested Senate races next year:

CO

AK

OR

MN

NH

NJ

VA

In all of these states except NJ Obama holds a decisive advantage over Hillary. Also, Obama would have an incredible monetary advantage over McCain and he's proven that he can out-raise Hillary by huge margins each month--in her best fundraising month of $35 million, Obama rasied $54 million. This money advantage would allow him to compete in all 50 states and force McCain to defend fronts he wouldn't have to defend with Hillary. If it comes down to two or three states, as it definitely would with McCain v. Hillary, the money advantage won't play as large of a role.

Although OH and FL would like to continue to have an out-sized role in presidential elections, their status as decider states will be seriously undermined in this election--thank God! FL's just another backwater, regressive Southern state with built-in growing demographic advantages for Republicans. Neither Clinton nor Obama could win there. And OH, well, if a bunch of white guys want to be duped into voting against their economic self-interest AGAIN because of a few things someone's pastor said, let them. There are other roads to victory.

VA is a big piece of that. Also CO, NV, and NM, the interior west. Northwest is also key. I don't know what's up with the WA poll but I think Hillary would have real problems in WA and OR. WI, MI, IA and MN are definitely big pieces. There are lots of ways of piecing together the puzzle. Democrats would be silly to let things come down to FL and OH again, especially FL. Forget about it for now.

Theater

This round of primaries is going to be a moment of truth for Democrats. As they tear themselves up or get caught in their own knots, they will probably realize how empty they are at this point of time. The anti-Bush rhetoric is going to recoil on them. They have been so corroded that they are now going to fall apart. More on this at my Blog

http://kishorejets.typepad.com/us_election_2008_controve

Steve

This is not a free speech issue...

Free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences in a free society. It means that government cannot limit your speech (except in very limited cases--yelling fire in a crowded theather, etc.) Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Sen. Obama are still free to speak as want.

Also, Rev. Wright recorded his own sermons and made them available in various media forms.

Hey Steve, a little reality check for ya, buddy.

Nobody is "attacking free speech / worship." What we're doing is holding a presidential candidate accountable for his actions. By patronizing Rev. Wright's church for 20 years and claiming him as a mentor, Barack Obama has raised serious questions about whether or not he secretly sympathizes with Wright's delusionally racist agenda of victimization. There are lots of other black majority churches in the Chicago area that Obama could have patronized where the ministers don't preach virulent hatred, paranoia and resentment, and yet he chose to patronize this one for two decades, and then initially lied about having ever heard Wright say any of the things he's been caught on tape saying.

I know that if the pastor at any church I've ever attended ever want off on the kind of racist tear that we've heard from Rev. Wright, I'd never darken the door of that church again as long as he was there. We are judged by the company we keep, and rightly so. This is especially true of candidates for the most powerful office in the world.

Obama is a great speaker

But, now we know what he really is after you get beyond the words.

Wow, this man had a real shot of being elected.

Scary.

Evanston Students for Obama

Must be nice to be so idealistic and naive. Obama is a very nice man, and an excellent speaker. He wins over the young idealists, far left extremists, and members of his own race. However, he is an empty suit with no definitive solutions to any of the problems the country faces. Raising taxes, especially on those who create jobs and grow the economy, is a terrible idea. Removing troops just as things are beginning to come around in Iraq is no better. An Obama victory dooms us to the path toward socialism and a foreign policy based upon surrender. McCain is no panacea, but under him, the country would survive and maybe improve.

Free Speech

Well said, Steve. Way too many people misinterpret the first amendment. For the most part, we can say what we want, but there is no guarantee that people will listen.

The Election

Obama will be the Dem candidate. No escaping that outcome, as his lead is too big to lose, unless the superdelegates get in on the act and overturn the results of the primaires -- in which case I believe we will have riots in the streets.

And Obama is what will sink the Dems in November. Look at his bona fides: A candidate was born a Mulsim, carrying a Muslim name, who converted in his 20s to a brand of Christiantiy that believes in Black Liberation Theology, who is also very liberal on a lot of issues. For those who do not know, Black Liberation Theology is rooted in socialism and openly draws on Karl Marx for its economic message and goal of "economic parity". This country will never elect a socialist/Marxist. All of this will come out in due course and we have another McGovern election on our hands.

On the other side of the coin, the personal narrative of John McCain is going to be coming out in due course and that story dwarfs anything either Clinton or Obama can bring to the table.

pro-Free speech <> pro-bigotry and cowardice

Hey, "Evanston Students for Obama," don't they teach you guys not to equate anti-bigotry with anti-speech?

With the new video showing Obama not only not engaging in any 'dialog' about race, but actually cheering and applauding the bigot Wright as he makes his disgusting statements, it's clear Obama is lying yet again.

The first lie was he never heard Wright make any racist remarks or even knew he thought that way. When that fails to convince anyone, he renegs, urging an intellectual exploration of why Wright spews such anti-American, racist filth rather than explain why he chose to stick around to be indoctrinated, never speaking up once or engaging in any such 'dialog' for 20 years. Sorry, Mr. Obama, but hate and racism and bigotry aren't to be enlessly 'discussed,' Mr. Obama, they are to be rejected outright.

But now we find out that he was even lying about disagreeing on Wright's 'crazy' remarks, I mean he's right there on film, APPLAUDING THEM!

I guess he'll be claiming Stockholm syndrome next.

BTW, who do you think is being influenced more, Rev. Wright, or Obama's small children being exposed to this vitriol from the day they were born? Would we tolerate a presidential candidate who attended, with his children, the mosque of a firebrand *Islamic* teacher? Even in the name of intellectual exploration?

Be Careful What You Wish For!

We have 3 running for the most powerful chair in the world. If the American people in their wisdom pick the wrong one our country will be a target for those from the outside as well as from the inside. Yes, we have those in waiting for the order given here in our country. How many enemy's have come over the border since 9/11 or before?

With the American schools putting out graduates that can't read in the next generation of people we have a good chance of losing what all our forefathers fought for in the past protecting our country. We have those today that hate our country without knowing how it came about and whom the blood was shed for. Without knowing history it has a good chance of repeating itself. Our country is not perfect, yes it has a darken past but it is changing for the better. I have been in other countries and I prefer this one.

We need to teach childeren responsibility for their actions. This is not being done today. It is so easy to forget that we are at war since we have not been attacked since 9/11. Whites, Blacks, Yellow, Reds, or whatever color you prefer it won't matter when the Nukes fly............................................

So be careful what you wish for..................

To All Students for Obama...

I have been wondering why students seem so overwhelmingly in favor of Obama. I understand that for the most part they are idealistic and want change; however, I do not assume them to be intellectually shallow enough to be fooled by his empty rhetoric.

Exactly what does Obama want to change, and how does he want to go about it? Doesn't give many details at all, other than an impressive increase in spending and taxes.

Also, "Yes we can!"

Can what?

This just baffles me. The guy has said very little about anything as to how he would improve the country. He's a hell of an orator, but I don't think he's shown much leadership.

Obama inspires and prevails

McCain has gotten a free pass so far with all the attention on Clinton and Obama. The more people get to know him, the less they're going to like him or his Bush-derivative policies. As Bill Richardson said today, Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate. Those who question his patriotism don't know what true patriotism is. I am a 50+ white woman in the heartland and know many folks just like me who are enthusiastically continuing to support Obama.--including working class, first-time voters. He's a different kind of candidate, and the usual math won't compute for him.

Obama's Core

Obama believes in one thing only: Obama. He went to Wright's church to gain "street cred" in his quest to be a political player in the Chicago machine. He went to the most expensive prep school in Hawaii, Ivy League undergrad and law school therefore leading a most atypical life for anyone regardless of racial background.

Wright's church provided a pathway to power and mentor ship from a power broker in local politics. Rev Wright is to Obama as Bill is to Hillary--a means to an end.

Change in Montana

I also am a 51 year old white man whos was impressed by the change rhetoric of Obama's speechs. As we get into his policy details we find out he is a traditional tax and spend big government liberal. That is change we can do without.

Then we find out he wants to rip up a free trade tready with a staunch ally, in the Afghan war, Canada. Make more enemies. That is change we can do without. Then he has his chief economic advisor tell the Canadians he really doesn't mean it and is just pandering. Wow now he is acting like a typical pol. So much for "doing the right thing" and "is sincere" part of your Obama argument.

Now we find out he sat in the pews of Rev Wrights church for 20 years and didn't know what he was saying. Then he said he did known. Are we to suspend disbelief? So much for the "Obama is truthful" part of your argument and especially he "sets a good example" part of your argument.

State by State

Barone's analysis of which Democratic candidate is stronger in each state fails to address a key issue. There are several states with heavy electoral votes that will go Democratic or Republican no matter who the Democrats nominate. These include California, New York, Illinois, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, District of Columbia and Massachusetts for the Democrats (149 ECV). Texas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Arizona will go to MCain (171 ECV). The outcome in all of these states will be the same whether Clinton is nominated or Obama is nominated.

The outcome of the general election will be determined by the voters in the remaining states. Clinton has a better chance than Obama in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Arkansas, West Virginia and Tennessee (78 ECV). Obama is stronger than Clinton in Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin (112 ECV). The two Democratic candidates appear to be equally strong in Michigan and Missouri (28 ECV).

Will either Democratic candidate beat McCain? By the numbers, either one could win. The claim that Clinton would be stronger than Obama in the general election looks more like spin than reality.

A wake-up call for the Democrats:

My mother, who is the least racist person I know and has been a reliable Democratic voter her entire life, will NOT vote for Obama if he is the nominee. Neither will my uncle, another reliable Democratic voter. Both will vote for McCain. And it's not that he's a black man - both voted for Harold Ford, Jr. in Tennessee. Neither one trust Obama, as Obama never references his white family, only his Kenyan family. Add that to his church affiliation, the Rezko deal, and the Messiah-like aura surrounding him...well, it just doesn't sit well with them. I also have a number of relatives who are racist Democratic voters - they will sit home rather than vote for Obama.

Me? I don't vote for the current type of Dems running for national office. Nominate a Sam Nunn or a Zell Miller and I'll reconsider. I'm not happy with McCain, but he's head and shoulders above either of the Dem alternatives.

Against McCain

The "problematical" (as you put it) thing about this column is that it presumes nothing will change between now and November, which is ridiculous. Hillary will be out of the race, and Obama will have a chance to debate McCain and make his case to the general electorate.

-

McCain has some serious weaknesses--his temperament and judgement being foremost among them. He is the most famous living war hero, but Vietnam is quickly receding from the public consciousness, so how much his biography will resonate with voters remains unclear. And of course, being a war hero doesn't automatically make you more patriotic, more capable at managing foreign affairs, or a better Commander-in-Chief. His support among social conservatives is lukewarm, and a majority of Americans are disillusioned with the Iraq war and angry about the economy. All of this spells trouble for him in November.

JC of IL

RE: Raising taxes, especially on those who create jobs and grow the economy, is a terrible idea.

You mean the big corporations that have been outsourcing them the past few years? This job creation is amply reflected in the rising unemployment rate.

Removing troops just as things are beginning to come around in Iraq is no better.

But keeping them there for the next 100 years (where will we get the funding for that, by the way, given our enormous deficits) is the better solution?

So, instead of trying a new way, we should keep doing what we've been doing since 2000, which has of course brought us enormous foreign policy and economic successes. This is shown by the strength of the dollar, the lack of a deficit, the non-crumbling infrastructure, the very low and falling unemployment rate, the flush-with-cash non-collapsing financial institutions....etc...now I see

democratic camapaigns

Enough of what we have already seen,the clintons should now retire,mcain is a grandfather who can now seat at home and babyseat his grandchildren,let obama take american for his young vibrant and full of energy.That's what america wants.

DEMS VS McCain

This is a bunch or crock, in the big states where hillary had huge leads on everybody before the primary even started... because of name recognition was hanging on for dear life in the end , and come November these big states like NY .CA..etc .. blue bleed DEMS will vote for any candidate on their party ticket. if NOT were they ever DEMS in the first place.

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.

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?

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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/