My basis for thinking that is that so many Republicans and independents are so vested in believing they dislike Clinton they won't allow themselves to take a second look.

It is true that the GOP/media hate machine will unload on Obama, but there is a good chance it will backfire. It succeeded against Harold Ford, but I think it will backfire against Obama. Also, Obama has been black all his life, he knows how to deal with smears and irrational hatred.

Also Obama has a fabulous ground game. Having volunteered for Bill in '92 and '96 I can say it was a very top-down operation. Obama has a ground game that will, in some degree, inoculate him from smears. This will have a healthy effect on local Dem committees.

If Obama prevails he must select a VP who acceptable to older women and Hispanics. I am not sure that he understands this.

That fact, that he can't possibly do any better than right now (mad media love, free pass, demonized opponent, etc.), undermines those polls--significantly--as a reason to even believe he's as electable as Clinton, let alone moreso.

My God, if Obama is so terrified of criticism that he called Lorne Michaels to complain about a damn comedy sketch, you can imagine what actual scrutiny would do to his campaign.

Also: I can't help but think that the conventional wisdom, in which he'll be this big asset for Democrats down the ticket, is false since he not only doesn't hold onto Democrats as well as Clinton against McCain, but also because he's running as as a post-partisan rather than as a Democrat (Even Clinton has claimed "progressive" while Obama not only shuns "liberal," but also "Democrat").

I think that this is about the lowest that Clinton can go in terms of support, but I don't think it will get much better for Obama -- there are still lots of 'undecided' out there who could break for Obama, but his support has always been kind of soft.

The other thing is that the VP choices will play a big role in this... if McCain chooses Huckabee, the map look one way, if he chooses someone other than Huckabee (like a northeastern moderate like Kean or Ridge, or a woman like Whitman or Snowe) the whole calculus changes.

The dems don't have VP choices. Obama needs to pick someone with strong national security credentials (Jim Webb would be my choice, because he can bring his state into the Dem column). Clinton needs to pick Obama.

Appreciate the hard work of pulling this together and sorting it out, but to me it looks pretty much like a GIGO exercise. Way too early to sort out either what the issues will be come fall or how the eventual candidates will handle them or each other. I'm a little suspicious of people's responses on H or O vs McC now - when it really is just H or just O, then the question will be more meaningful.

Chewing on this, it seems to me that both of them have strengths and weaknesses versus McCain that on paper come out roughly equivalent. Of the two, however, I think Clinton will be better at both defense and attack, just from experience. The difference is small and I would not base any decision now on electability, but rather who has the better probability of successfully managing the government. Again, for me, the answer is Clinton.

Jim Webb would be my choice, because he can bring his state into the Dem column

Are you insane? Webb has never had an approval rating over 50% in Virginia. He won because George Allen had a melt down. He would not win Virginia.

Moreover Webb is radio active to older women, truly radio active. Many older women are increasingly distrustful of Obama, selecting Webb would exaserbate that. You cannot have seen those commercials of George Allens, the former female cadets talking about what it was like after Webb's now infamous magazine article Women can't fight where he described the female cadets as thunder thighs

I have never understood netroots enthusiasm for Reagan's Secretary of the Navy. In the aftermath of Webb's FISA vote and his vote for the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement

But heck, if Obama wants Hagel and Lugar in his cabinent, why not Webb as VP?

webb is the wrong choice. i haven't stopped pointing out how much he rubs wimmin the wrong way since he got in the game. he's not good to assuage the hurt feelings of the clitoris-owning clintonistas. the regular, little people kind, not the insider baseball sort. anyway: no to webb. he's great in the senate and i hope he can hang on and keep VA on "our side," but he blew it several times already, including on FISA. so no, he's no hero. he's also a sexist, but never mind that.

... that Webb is, therefore, exactly who Obama would pick.

After all, the wimmin have no place to go, right? So why bother appealing to them?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

That man is just a house of cards waiting to fall; he has a major authenticity gap. Besides, the fact he's simply not qualified to be president will be a legitimate point of attack against him as VP. Lastly, his personality complex is most disturbing: severe entitlement issues/God complex. Combine this with utter ineptitude and "unity" as his core "principle" in the midst of our current mess and you've got even more of a clusterfuck. Krugman always said to judge a candidate by how they handle criticism of policy; Obama proves himself to be someone who, when criticized, smears the critic (without basis) and embraces the weakness even more. The hell I want this man anywhere near the White House.

Even his staff is getting in on the entitlement-induced hysteria (link from TalkLeft):
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestne...

Samantha Power, a foreign policy advisor, said these following gems:
Ms Power told The Scotsman Mrs Clinton was stopping at nothing to try to seize the lead from Mr Obama.

"We f***** up in Ohio," she admitted. "In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win.

"She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything," Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.

She then adds some lovely projection:

"Here, it looks like desperation. I hope it looks like desperation there too.

"You just look at her and think: ergh. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."

Ah, yes, this is the same Samantha Power who even confessed early on to having drunk the Obama kool-aid. Perhaps someone should tell her slamming Ohio voters is not exactly a brilliant GE strategy. Oh, and, uh, when your candidate states that his "Dream Team" will enlighten politics itself--if not the whole world!--perhaps one shouldn't engage in such bizarre personal attacks.

Since the Obama campaign went to great lengths to paint Bill Clinton as a racist, and the _____ ers make great play of the co-presidency, why on earth would Obama accept such an offer, even if it were to be made?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Okay, not entirely, but he shows the shifting landscape of Rasmussen polling comparing Obama and Clinton with McCain. Basically, Obama was at a high water point doing about 12% better than Clinton against McCain around Feb. 14 and now he does 4% worse than Clinton would do. Link http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03...

Which I don't think means much, but does corroborate the theory that Obama is coming off his high-water mark.

And I can't believe those comments from Samantha Power (which I linked in another comment section) are going to help him. I'm so glad Donna Brazile warned us all about the negativity about to come from Hillary Clinton. And is it me or are the Obama people are really starting to sound like desperate whiners. I haven't felt this good about Clinton's chances since NH and only about 60% of that is Tuesday's results. The rest is the Obama Camp's reaction to Tuesday's results.

I think that line is fair to say what will dictate what happens in November.

I happen to believe that Clinton will have an easier time. The hard left, like myself, won't vote for Obama. I'll go with Nader. I may even go with Nader if Clinton is the nominee since I live in California and I want to send a message to the Democratic Party to stop taking me for granted.

If it is Obama vs McCain, Hispanics will probably go for Obama 53-47 or thereabouts. There will be no chance to win Florida. California may even come into play. I saw an exit poll where only 65% of Clinton supporters in Texas would vote for Obama in a general election whereas 80% supporters would vote for Clinton.

I think Martin Roland is delusional but this is what he said last night on CNN. McCain will get 30% of the African-American vote if Clinton is the nominee. He added another 20% would stay home. I think that's wishful thinking.

Asian-Americans love McCain especially the Vietnamese and the Koreans. A large group in California and if McCain takes 40% or more of Hispanics and loses the hard left to Nader, trouble for Obama.

Obama has also angered Colombian-Americans, Venezuelan-Americans with his willingness to talk to Chavez without preconditions. There are a million Colombians in the NY-NJ area. I also don't think Obama has the national security credentials to match up with McCain. I see another Dukakis.

And then there is the Bradley Effect which is not a primary problem but a general election. Take Pennsylvania. It is Pittsburgh and Philadelphia on the ends and Alabama in the middle. If the Democrats can't win Pennsylvania or West Virginia or Ohio, trouble bubble that's the game.

The GOP has a built in advantage in the Electoral College. A lock on the South and the Mountain West. Nevada which we could take we might lose if enough Hispanics cross over for McCain.

So how does Obama pull this off? A crashed economy? That's his sole salvation methinks and who wants that?

Charles Lemos. This seems to me an extraordinarily self-destructive construct. You say:

The hard left, like myself, won’t vote for Obama. I’ll go with Nader.

And:

Asian-Americans love McCain especially the Vietnamese and the Koreans. A large group in California and if McCain takes 40% or more of Hispanics and loses the hard left to Nader, trouble for Obama.

So your loathing for Obama is so great that you would vote in a way that risks putting McCain in the White House thus losing the Supreme Court, tipping the whole of the federal judiciary to a hard-right, authoritarian bent for a generation, continued if not expanded warfare and increased domestic economic disparity?

Really? Please defend how this course of action reconciles with your self-description of being "hard left." Sounds to me more like "hard-head."

but I can't support Obama. He is not a Democrat.

I still think that Clinton call pull it out so I hope that the point will be mute.

If faced with Obama versus McCain. I will go with Nader because I see that system is broken and I am increasingly more comfortable with the Green Party. I may even vote for Nader if Clinton is the nominee though then I do think that Clinton would win the general election. If the election in California were to be close then yes I would support Clinton no questions asked.

I have thought about the SCOTUS and other issues but I also believe that Obama would be a trainwreck of inexperience and folly that he would set the Democratic Party back another generation.

Still I am throwing all my energy towards Clinton now so that I won't be faced with that choice.

I do disagree with the assertion that a McCain victory will lead to expanded warfare. McCain is certainly an advocate of doing what he thinks is necessary in Iraq but I also would have to think that he would realize how expensive and over-stretched the military is.

Even if I were to buckle to pressure, I don't see how Obama can win.

I hope my honesty doesn't offend you but I will note that many feel the way I do. Obama is unacceptable. It is hard place to be. Sorry.

The misogynistic remarks, the ties to corporations, the inexperience on foreign affairs, the sell out of the LGBT community, his religious conversion, the fact that he throws the progressive agenda under a bus time and again on health care, on energy is just too much for me to get over.

I have fought Bush for 7 years. I will fight McCain and even Obama because he is not a Democrat.

See how many people are saying just the same thing, that they won't be able to support Obama in a general election. Those are left-wing Democrats.

It disturbs me that it has become like this. We are having a very uncivil civil war and I personally blame Obama. That may be a bias but I think it fair to note so many others feel this way. This past weekend I went to a SF bloggers beer bust. There I met both shystee and a black lesbian. She also said she would not vote for Obama in the general election. So I am gay and she's a very sweet dyke, what does that say?

It's troubling that we are so opposed to Obama but can you blame us? I understand your argument but it may be time to say good-bye to the Democratic Party and go Green where what I believe is the mainstream and not the fringe.

Your comment gets me thinking that indeed is what I should do. You (metaphorically speaking) are taking me for granting in pursuit of some cause while my causes are shunted for the greater good. Well when do I get my say? When will someone stand up for me? The feeling I get is that to Obama I am no different than James Dobson. We both get seats at the table to discuss gay issues. I don't want to sit down with James Dobson. Call me hard headed but I value my life.

You are pretty much convincing me to vote for Nader. You may be missing how deep the discontent against Obama is on the left. I vote my conscience. My conscience tells me Obama is unacceptable.

It is also fair to note that Democratic Party will control the Senate and that McCain will have to work with them on appointments to SCOTUS. If they don't have a back bone, then blame them not Nader or me. You concern is misplaced. Blame the sellouts in the Democratic Party. Again, the more I write the more I am convincing myself to vote for Nader so I'll stop.

I wrote earlier
I still think that Clinton call pull it out so I hope that the point will be mute.

That should be moot. I should be mute. Sorry, late night.

"who ain't afraid of McCain"

http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/...

Honestly, at least I ain't saying I will vote for McCain like this person is.

I mean the things Obama supporters say. And you want me to associate with logic like that.

Sorry no go. As an Edwards supporter, Clinton is fine. I'd be proud to vote for her. Nader has his appeal but so does Clinton. Obama has zip, zilch, nada appeal. I'm sorry if that offends you.

Burn Denver. Geez.

I took down the text of what I'd written.

Can't find civil words to express how offended I am.

Every individual is responsible for how they vote, and for the consequence. Can't blame anyone else. Can't be such a nellie that somebody else's intemperate words control how you think or what you do.

I'll come back to this when I cool down some.

And Nader is a horse's ass. He's a megalomaniac. He's fucking nuts. There's nothing nice or decent or good about him. He doesn't give a damn about anybody but Ralph Nader, never has, never will. If you're gonna vote on character, he should be on the bottom of your list. Christ on a crutch.

time to catch up, friend. you've made some good points here recently and i don't want to have to start skimming your posts instead of reading them. but that's what i do with naydarr supporters.

he takes republican money. lots. he meets with high ranking K street republican insiders, regularly. he's done *nothing* to build the party, and a great deal to destroy any chance the green label has to evolve into a viable alternative. for a long time, ralph has been about ralph, and not the issues. you've got to wake up to the facts on him. he's a fake radical, and if you're the foily type, a not so invisible plant by the other side.

anyway: i hear your other points. good ones, some of them. it's fair for an edwards supporter to choose clinton over obama, and a third party vote if it's obama. but voting for ralph just makes you look naive, or insincere in your understanding of progressives aims and values.

we're very tolerant here, but know that people here are also sophisticated. they know the difference (and work it) between the local GP good guys and the evil that is ralph. try to keep up.

I love the piece. Not being particularly tied to party politics - still haven't decided whether or not the party system is a necessary evil - it's hard for me to think of the logistics of a team win. The piece imposed a bit of analytic discipline. Starting to think more of the electoral college. But, what if the vote totals are rigged.

I mean this seriously. I've been nagging for the past year that we need to secure the vote.

The new game seems to be:

project (declare) the winner (you know like five minutes after the polls open, you get Good Morning America and CNN saying shit like we project Y the winner.

spin any contradictory polls, the polls seem to work out on everything but the voting outcomes. I don't think it's the polls. I've been getting anecdotal results from campaign supporters in Ohio and Texas and they were large samples, over 1000, and prettymuch predicted the trend and sentiment accurately.

create a comfortable margin of victory in vote totals in order to justify or rationalize the outcome.

Seeing these charts let me see how little you need to tweak votes in order to move any candidate into office.

So, what about the unsecure diebold machines?

If McVain gets in we will go to war with Iran and thousands of people will die. This isn't just about The United States, it certainly isn't about you, it is about the world.

moreover, anyone who threatens to walk gives the opposing side permission to walk.

we have a responsibility to the entire world and future generations to elect a Democrat, however flawed a Democrat.

So, what about the unsecure diebold machines?

oy! don't get me started.

the good news is that in most of the key states (except florida), Democrats are in charge of elections, so if there is gonna be any cheating done, it will be to our benefit! ;-)

He's the one running this insanely polarizing and fundamentally dishonest "unity" campaign.

Besides, how he'll survive, let alone succeed, as president with the rabid right wing going all-out is beyond me. To think an unqualified president with an obvious God complex in power during the most trying of times, one who'll cower to the right while dividing us (Look at us now!), won't be disastrous for the country--and the progressive movement in particular--in the long run seems naive. Plus, it's not as if his foreign policy isn't most hawkish under the cover of American "moral" leadership and "humanitarianism." The road to hell is paved with good intentions and to think he'll combine that with incompetence and cowardice is troubling.

I've dedicated my (young) life to the Democratic party, working on campaign after campaign (I even joined my parents in volunteering for Dukakis as a 7 year-old). I did everything to convince myself I could vote for Obama, but he made it all but impossible for me (e.g., exploitation of misogynistic bigotry; his nomination would further legitimize it, unbelievably so, since it'd be from those sworn to combat it--the left).

I'll sit it out if Obama is the nominee, but it won't matter anyway because I can't see how he has a chance of winning the GE. He can't even withstand legitimate criticism and he's set himself up for a mighty fall with his "savior" image.

Numerous obligatory caveats about any polling this far in advance of the fact, but entirely fascinating to look at as a preliminary survey snapshot.

I mean, BHO wins OR, WA, IA and VA but loses PA and FL, while HRC does exactly the reverse??

It's all Electoral College maneuvering, 50+1 at the state level (with caveat for Nebraska on account of they are weird there), not overall popular vote. But interesting shit nonetheless. Paul's the number-cruncher here but i must admit finding a graphical presentation to be a little more...digestable. :)

Oh, almost forgot to mention they both clean his flipflopping clock, but it's the different ways in which the cleanser is applied that I find intriguing.

this thread is absolutely crazy.

i like both clinton and obama. i will obama over clinton, but i would be happy to have either as a president. on every single issue they will be light years better than bush and mccain. and, for that matter, neither clinton nor obama are all that much different from one another on most policy issues.

frankly, i find it really horrifying watching all the pro-obama blogs have people talking about how they won't support clinton in the general and all the pro-clinton blogs have commentators saying they won't vote for obama in the general. it's you guys, not obama or clinton that are screwing things up. and it is you guys who will be as reviled as the naderites were in january 2001 if mccain takes the oath of office next year.

this is exactly why i think the primary contest is only hurting the democratic party. people are passionate about their candidate (or rather, it seems more common to see them passionate about trashing the other one), but a lot of what i see written about obama on pro-clinton sites is pure horseshit, just as a lot of stuff i see about clinton on those other sites is also horseshit. no one is being critical about the criticism they read about the candidate they don't like.

but i digress. the answer to the question raised in this post is: they're both electable. unless the democrats stab them in the back, either one should crush mccain and his corrupt republican party. who is "more electable" of the two varies from week to week and thus it is semi-meaningless to look at today's data and think we can draw a meaningful conclusion about who will do better if they're on the ticket 7 months from now.

He hasn't even gotten the nomination yet and already he's being exposed as a fraud on his signature issue: Iraq.

Yet another Power gem, this time on Obama's Iraq strategy versus his rhetoric:
http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/07/power...

I'm not saying Obama still won't steal the nomination (That's right: steal; the man is a typical corrupt, ruthless Chicago-style politician), just that he'll never win the GE. No. Way.

... and I have to wonder if that was the real reason Power was thrown over the side, because now, so far as I can tell, Hillary and Obama's positions on Iraq are not distinguisable.

Haven't seen any evidence on steal, though some hard evidence might emerge from the TX caucuses. Sharp elbows? Sure. Caucuses not democratic? Clearly. But I haven't heard of any dead people voting for Obama. (Now, people that Obama raised from the dead--that's a different story.)

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I was thinking about the (likely) illegal caucus behavior in Texas and irregularities in OH (the way polling places were targeted by Obama's lawyers to keep open longer); these are just what we know of. Obama is backed by the Chicago political machine and I cannot see how the law would be a hindrance, especially since the corporate media gives his camp a total pass. What's stopping them? Nothing.

Perhaps the corporate media is the most blatant form of cheating (in addition to the caucus intimidation): Obama has this incredible, propaganda advantage with its large influence used to launch an all-out smear campaign against Clinton. He has exploited it fully since the free pass allows him to smear her directly and lie brazenly without accountability.

I just can't get over how a serious presidential candidate without qualifications to be president, let alone now, has never run in a truly contested election before. He only wins when opponents are kneecapped out of competition.

... I mean, given what I remember of Ohio 2004, keeping polling places open later could definitely be a good idea.

And I have an open mind on TX irregularities, but so far the best post on it was from, of all people, Ann Althouse. Got any links? (And by irregularities, I don't mean the suckitude of the caucus system; I know it sucks.)

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I am with Lambert, keeping polling places open improves access. Davidson sounds like a provocateur.

Don't make charges of cheating unless you have specific information to back it up.

No, the problem was not that he filed lawsuits to keep the polls open but how he selected these particular precincts (Hence, "the way polling places were targeted" in my previous comment); the allegation was that he specifically targeted them because of their demographics (they're predominately black), while claiming otherwise and without proof.

I swear I read it at TalkLeft, but here's a great link on the matter: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindeale...
Claims by the Barack Obama campaign Tuesday that ballots ran short in some predominantly black Cleveland precincts persuaded a federal judge to keep 20 precincts open an extra 90 minutes and once again opened Cuyahoga County to criticism that it suppresses the black vote.

snip

[Secretary of State Jane] Brunner charged that the Obama campaign targeted precincts where it could get extra votes by staying open.

Jane Platten, the Cuyahoga County elections director, said the Obama campaign offered no proof to support their charges.

There's also this link about OH:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/4/1...

Davidson sounds like a provocateur.
If you want to fault me for being imprecise or failing to do my editing properly (I admit to the latter for failing to include "allegation" and assuming that Corrente readers had already heard about OH, thus, the lack of links), that's totally understandable. Honestly. But what did I to inflame you? Why is it so outlandish to say that a camp will do what they can get away with, especially a camp rooted in Chicago machine politics and given a total pass by the media?

Next time you want to charge me with something like that, at least, say it directly to me rather than about me (i.e. say "you sound like" rather than "Davidson sounds like"). Alright? OK.

And I wish I had more detail on TX. Apparently, it was a Clusterfuck down there, but there doesn't seem to be a post that aggregates it all.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I always thought that it was very strange that Cleveland would be running out of ballots, considering that the weather was so bad for most of the day...