MyDD :: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have to FIGHT for WA

by DailyKingFish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:22:00 PM EST

Re: Come on gang! (1.33 / 3)

Only CO with 9 EVs and IA with 7 are states that went Bush in 2004, . . .

. . . that ain't enough to offset losses in FL & OH and certainly if he can't hold MI (statistical tie), stick a fork in him 'cause he's done.

If you had everything, where would you put it?

by wasanyonehurt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:00:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WA, OR, IA ... (2.00 / 2)

are all states that went for Kerry in 2004. If she loses those, stick a fork in her, she's done!

by DailyKingFish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:06:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WA, OR, IA ... (none / 0)

They both have the same argument. That's the problem Hillary has. Why would the Super Delegates rush to her when she offers nothing more than Obama does? Makes no sense.

As an Obama supporter and a Unity Ticket skeptic. I've moved on.

I am now convinced....

Obama/Hillary PWNS McSame/Mittens

That's just the way it's going to be.

Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!

by spacemanspiff on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:14:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WA, OR, IA ... (2.00 / 0)

IA didn't go for Kerry.

by Mayor McCheese on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:27:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WA, OR, MI or WI... (none / 0)

sorry ... forgot that IA went for Bush in '04. my bad. but if she loses MI or WI, she's done!

by DailyKingFish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:34:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WA, OR, MI or WI... (none / 0)

Any candidate we nominate is likely done with a loss there.

by Mayor McCheese on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:37:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WA, OR, MI or WI... (none / 0)

So true. I think the main point is that Obama has his strengths just as Hillary has hers. Breathlessly pointing to polls to say "Obama can't win" the swing states would mean a bit more if polls show Clinton carrying every state that Kerry or Gore carried. The map's different. I want Ohio but I don't want all of my eggs in the Ohio basket. And while Hillary polls well there, I no longer believe in sure things.

by niksder on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:47:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She shows double his strength this week. (none / 0)

The diarists list of polls show Obama ahead in the five states where McCain leads Clinton by an aggregate totatl of less than ten points.

The states carry 50 electoral votes.

Also on Real Clear Politics but not lested by our diarists are severalother recent polls in swing states:

Ohio
Florida
Missouri
New Mexico
Nevada
North Carolina

Hillary has the lead against McCain in polls in all of them for a total basket of electoral votes of 104.

by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:15:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And in these polls McCain Beats Obama!. (none / 0)

by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:17:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then let's add Virginia, as well (2.00 / 1)

From SUSA, today:

Obama: 49% (35%)
McCain: 42% (55%)

Obama/Edwards: 53%
McCain/Huckabee: 41%

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=9901f8fc-034e-4a1d-ab36-f6e5c9 18614e

by bookish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:16:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Considering SUSA (2.00 / 1)

missed big in the NC primary, I think I'll withhold my praise for their methodology until I see some more polls.

Remember how you were all touting their poll as an indication that Clinton was closing the gap in NC? 'member?

by bookish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:31:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

take some mojo. (none / 0)

I really like your sig.

I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas

by ghost 2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:20:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on gang! (none / 0)

What are you talking about.... Kerry States plus CO and IA = 275

So YES they are enough.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:07:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (2.00 / 1)

She is within the MoE in all those states, whereas McCain is ahead on average in these same RCP in OH and FL.

WI is canceled out by MO
CO is canceled out by AR+WV

And MI will go her way as the other Industrial states have gone.

by American1989 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:24:47 PM EST

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (none / 0)

There's zero chance she wins WV. MO maybe, close to Arkansas...

by ihaveseenenough on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:28:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (2.00 / 0)

have you seen the latest polls, if Obama can win VA, then surely Clinton can win WV.

by American1989 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:29:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (2.00 / 1)

Poblano gives her 75% to win WV.

by mattw on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:35:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (none / 0)

But once the Republicans start running Gays, God, and Guns ads there, they're going to take it back. It's just the pattern over there right now. There's no way for a Clinton to out Gays, God, and Guns the Republican party in a state that EATS up that message.

I'd give it 15% Clinton could take it and 5% Obama could. But there are just as many states where the reverse is true.

And yes, I know Bill won in 92 and 96. But he also won Georgia. The electorate has changed down there thanks to some shrewd Republican tricks, and it's not going to switch back that fast.

by ihaveseenenough on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:40:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton supporters won't love FoxNews in a GE. (2.00 / 3)

Her stature in KY and WV would take a dive once the right wing starts firing at her again.

by jimotto on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly (2.00 / 3)

Her campaign in Appalachia has put her well to the right of Obama. She won't be the candidate on the right in November. She ain't getting the NRA vote.

by nwgates on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:05:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I completely disagree (none / 0)

my old neighboring state is far too consumed with identity to vote for a woman in the general election, if that woman is up against a white male war hero.

by Tenafly Viper on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:27:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (2.00 / 3)

Obama is within the MOE in some of the polls that have been used to show that he can't win (as if polling in May was meaningful...).

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:38:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Boom! (none / 0)

that exploding Iran just cost us the democratic election. Industrial != industrial.

Arab population not likely to vote Clinton, extremely likely to vote Obama.

by BlogSurrogate57 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:48:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (none / 0)

Michigan is not like PA or OH. We are more like WI and MN, and we have a fairly diverse population here for a midwestern state, two segments of which (AAs and Arabs) are highly unlikely to vote for Hillary.

John McCain hates terrorists, except the ones that hate women. Those are just swell.

by terra on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:50:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (2.00 / 1)

I would add VA in there..

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:25:05 PM EST

WOW (none / 0)

I least thought she would do well in Oregon, Washington and Michigan!

I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support... NY Governor Paterson

by obamaovermccain on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:30:16 PM EST

Re: WOW (2.00 / 2)

I can't speak for Michigan, but in Oregon and Washington consistency counts. Unfortunately, Hillary has not been consistent in message, going (as one example) from "it's the delegates" at the beginning through an assortment of other positions to the current "it's the popular vote (some restrictions apply, may not be legal in all states)"

There also is a strong tendency to frown upon racist or sexist speech and positions. And, to date, there appears to have been more racist speech than sexist speech, and more on the Clinton side than the Obama side (including surrogates and supporters).

NOTE: Although I started as a Hillary supporter, I was not swayed by racist/sexist positions so much as I was by position shifting / inconsistent message, and a perception I formed from listening to Hillary's speeches and debates and reading her position papers that she really did not understand the needs of the "financially challenged". As an example of the latter, my wife, a former school teacher, and I were both appalled by her position on tax breaks for College Tuition, funded by suspending the Guaranteed Student Loan program. How does this work for the students if they do not have enough up-front cash to fund tuition, anyway?

by Vancouverite on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:35:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When we base things on polls... (2.00 / 8)

...we fail to take into account a number of things.

Like:

-what happens when Obama gets on TV and destroys McCain in the debates, which he will.

-when Obama starts actively campaigning against the Republican party, and is fighting over all the nation's voters, not just the Democrats.

-when Obama starts spending actively on ads targeting swing voters and independents, not Democrats

-when more voters are exposed to the differences between McCain and Obama, and four more years of failed Bush policies versus BBQs at the Sedona ranch.

-when the DNC can raise money and start running ads against McCain, like the RNC is already doing against OBAMA.

We do this poll soul-searching at our peril. It provides quick talking points, sure, but these points are always instantly refuted by some other poll. More importantly, it ignores the fact that no SD is going to pick the loser of a primary battle simply because she happens to be polling better in a few states than the presumptive nominee.

I don't see any end to this until May 31, when the rules committee sets the goalposts in stone (likely not far from where they are now), and the wave of SDs comes down, likely for Obama if history is any indication. Then we can start healing and hopefully have enough time. Hopefully.

by ihaveseenenough on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:32:20 PM EST

Re: When we base things on polls... (2.00 / 3)

As if polls weren't unreliable enough this far out, these are all good reasons to discard them.

by mattw on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:37:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When we base things on polls... (2.00 / 1)

Exactly! Polls are notoriously inaccurate even the day before. Why should we start basing our process on them now?

We base our process on electoral votes in the GE, and for Delegates and Super Delegates at the convention. That's the way it is. Not perfect, and frankly I hope it gets fixed by 2016 (Obama will be fine in 2012).

BUT- when you play a Monopoly, you follow the rules that are on the box, not the rules you declare midway through. Baltic Avenue rent isn't going to be $10,000, even if that's the only one you own,.

by ihaveseenenough on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:42:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama debates (none / 0)

If "Obama gets on TV and destroys McCain in the debates"

AND

"Clinton gets on TV and destroys Obama in debate"

THEN (by the transitive property of equality)

"Clinton gets on TV and DOUBLE destroys McCain in the debates"

If you had everything, where would you put it?

by wasanyonehurt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:24:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama debates (none / 0)

Perhaps you were watching different debates than I was.

I can most certainly dispute that "That's change you can Xerox!" Clinton (Xerox? Really? Did Penn write that little nugget on the back of a cocktail napkin in 1983?) destroyed Obama.

But I won't dispute that Clinton would also destroy Mcain. No dispute at all.

Had she been the nominee, she'd have had the chance. Unfortunately for her, that privilege is about 99% likely to fall to Obama this year. Perhaps she'll run in 2016, and so will McCain (at 90??) and we'll get to see it after all.

by ihaveseenenough on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:50:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WA would NOT be easy for her (none / 0)

There would be a huge backlash in Seattle if she "won" the nomination dirty.

by Beekeeper on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:34:02 PM EST

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (none / 0)

CO, OR, WI, IA, MI or FL, PA, OH. I'll take FL, PA, OH.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:35:27 PM EST

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (2.00 / 1)

Obama wins PA too. And WA. And VA.

by mattw on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:39:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (2.00 / 1)

CO + OR + WI + IA + MI > OH + FL

Both Obama and Clinton win PA. Ultimately Obama probably wins OH too although it's tight now.

There is a VERY real path to the Presidency for Obama without OH or FL.

I like baked beans.

by SpideyDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:43:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (none / 0)

I hope so but not based on history. Whoever wins 2 of 3 of FL, OH, PA wins the election.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:44:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (none / 0)

I really don't know what to think of all this polling. There are so many variables in this historic primary, including so many people blowing off steam on both sides saying they're going for McCain, many of whom won't.

I did an analysis of polling averages two days ago, which found:

HC 257, JM 254 - FL tossup.
JM 244, BO 233 - MI, WI, CO, NV, OH tossups.

Electability news recently is tangibly but not overwhelmingly in Clinton's favor.

I like baked beans.

by SpideyDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:49:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

History is consistenly overrated (none / 0)

What good does knowing about the 100 years war do you?

Nothing. In the past hundred years our civilization has changed more than the past thousand before it.

Go Science! Go Technology! Let's Go!

by BlogSurrogate57 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:51:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: History is consistenly overrated (none / 0)

100 years war? Where did I mention that? I also never mentioned anything about science, technology, or civilization. I was only talking about the electoral likelihood of these two states and the win ratio.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:19:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am making a large generalization (none / 0)

sorry, it must have looked like I was changing the subject.

I don't particularly care for "but history says..."
arguments. reason outlined above. Things change, and rapidly.

by BlogSurrogate57 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:29:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am making a large generalization (none / 0)

Not in electoral politics they don't. Certainly not from one election cycle to the other. Most states as a whole tend to politically move very slowly. There's no 'rapid change'; most change takes a long time. Look at Virginia for example; there's not a realistic shot that the state may vote Democrat in November for President, but that's not because of 2004. That's because of a slowly-evolving trend of Northern Virginia increasingly becoming more populous and Democratic. That's a trend over the last 10-15 years, not the last couple of days.

There's a lot to be learned from history; you shouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:18:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am making a large generalization (none / 0)

"Now" a realistic shot the state may vote Democrat in November, not "not".

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:22:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (none / 0)

What about the history of people staking their campaigns on the two...and losing?

John McCain hates terrorists, except the ones that hate women. Those are just swell.

by terra on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:51:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (none / 0)

You just prove my point. Whoever wins 2 of the 3 wins the election.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tester and Webb and Sebelius (none / 0)

show that there is a serious mapchanging opportunity this election.

we can take it, or we can cede large portions of the country to John.

by BlogSurrogate57 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:30:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tester and Webb and Sebelius (none / 0)

I'm not talking about ceding any territory, simply acknowledging that in within the last 50 or so years the winner of 2 of those 3 states wins the Presidency.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:23:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (2.00 / 1)

real, but much, much harder. And if Obama does't carry PA, which is possible, very much harder.

by Mayor McCheese on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:07:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (2.00 / 1)

He's polling up to seventeen points over McCain in PA, and he's tied- dead even- with McCain in Ohio right now.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:18:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (2.00 / 1)

17? I've not seen this one, unless its very new. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_mccain_vs _obama-244.html#polls

by Mayor McCheese on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (none / 0)

In a hypothetical Obama/Edwards matchup against McCain/Pawlenty, I think. The average was nine, I believe, depending on the combination.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:28:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wow, we like Edwards so much around here? (none / 0)

Edwards for AG!

by BlogSurrogate57 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:52:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (none / 0)

PA is a questionable state for Obama. Very questionable. And--election history does count. Gambling on winning the interior West (NM,Nev, and CO) is especially a gamble when the westerner, McCain, revs up. Va could be interesting; but, it would be easier for a Dem to get PA (a weak spot, ultimately, for Obama.) Wisconson has had some interesting trends in recent years--more and more Republican. As Kerry found out, that could be tougher than expected. (Off the top of my head, I can't remember the number of electoral votes for Wisc.; but, Clinton would net Arkansas and really does have a chance at WVa.) Bottom line: PA could be more than trouble for Obama because of the "working class, seniors, hunters, Catholics" demos; and, be very leary of wishing on the interior West.

by christinep on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (2.00 / 1)

Hard but maybe not as hard as you think. He just needs to hold together the Kerry states and add CO, IA, and NM. He's ahead in polling in all three. I'm with you, though. FL/OH make matters a lot easier.

I like baked beans.

by SpideyDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:18:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (none / 0)

Hillary or Obama will win the states John Kerry carried by more than a 5% margin in 2004.
CA-55
NY-86
IL-107
NJ-122
MA-134
WA-145
MD-155
CT-162
HI-166
ME-170
RI-174
DC-177
DE-180
VT-183

Looking at the Swing States Hillary will win.
FL-210
PA-231
OH-251
MI-268
AR-274

Looking at the Swing States Obama will win.
PA-204
MI-221
VA-234
MO-245
MN-255
WI-265
CO-274
IA-280
OR-287
NM-292
NV-297
NH-301

Obama can also win NC.

by nkpolitics on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (2.00 / 1)

Hillary or Obama will win the states John Kerry carried by more than a 5% margin in 2004.
CA-55
NY-86
IL-107
NJ-122
MA-134
WA-145
MD-155
CT-162
HI-166
ME-170
RI-174
DC-177
DE-180
VT-183

Looking at the Swing States Hillary will win.
FL-210
PA-231
OH-251
MI-268
AR-274

Looking at the Swing States Obama will win.
PA-204
MI-221
VA-234
MO-245
MN-255
WI-265
CO-274
IA-280
OR-287
NM-292
NV-297
NH-301

Obama can also win NC.

by nkpolitics on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (none / 0)

Hillary or Obama will win the states John Kerry carried by more than a 5% margin in 2004.
CA-55
NY-86
IL-107
NJ-122
MA-134
WA-145
MD-155
CT-162
HI-166
ME-170
RI-174
DC-177
DE-180
VT-183

Looking at the Swing States Hillary will win.
FL-210
PA-231
OH-251
MI-268
AR-274

Looking at the Swing States Obama will win.
PA-204
MI-221
VA-234
MO-245
MN-255
WI-265
CO-274
IA-280
OR-287
NM-292
NV-297
NH-301

Obama can also win NC.

by nkpolitics on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:40:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I find the title misleading (2.00 / 2)

The polls don't demonstrate that she "loses" most of these states. Mi, IA, WI, and OR are all well within the MOE.

by Mayor McCheese on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:41:55 PM EST

Re: I find the title misleading (1.50 / 4)

Gee ... misleading? How about that "popular vote" metric the Hillary supporters invoke every chance they get? Misleading? You don't say!

by DailyKingFish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:09:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I find the title misleading (1.50 / 2)

Yep. Misleading.

by Mayor McCheese on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:24:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you saying ... (none / 0)

the popular vote metric is misleading? Really?!

by DailyKingFish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:05:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you saying ... (2.00 / 1)

The Democratic Party has historically pushed for expanding and counting all the popular vote. Remember 2000 and Florida. Long before that, remember the civil rights movement and voter registration. Every poll of Democrats taken shows that the strong preference as to "metrics" is to rate the "popular vote" at the top. Whether or not one supports that outcome, it is important to recognize that the paramount nature of the popular vote has always been close to the heart of the Democratic Party. So, we may have a dilemma now....

by christinep on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:11:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NO. We don't have a dilemma (none / 0)

The metric for the nomination is quite simple.

It's all about the delegates. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.

by DailyKingFish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:45:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you saying ... (none / 0)

Yeah, for national elections, the popular vote is a meaningful metric. For 58 elections, each with completely different rules regarding participation, the popular vote doesn't mean a thing. You can't add apples, oranges, bananas, watermelons, mangos, and kiwis together. It just makes no sense.

John McCain the flip-flopper...

by chinapaulo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:26:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I find the title misleading (none / 0)

Strangely enough it always seems to me that when Obama-McCain are within the MOE of each other in polls, the front page maps show the state going to McCain, but when Hillary-McCain are within the MOE of each other, the maps usually show it going to Hillary.

I'd like to know what are the polls that feed this map thingy.

by Aris Katsaris on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:12:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I find the title misleading (none / 0)

Yeah, I've noticed that too ... but in case you didn't know ... this a pro-Hillary site. Even the MSM, BSM, COM is picking up on that one:

She could be grafted onto the ticket. The pro-Clinton blog, My DD, ran a post by Andre Walker that revealed that party rules say, "It takes the signatures of not less than 300 and no more than 600 delegate votes" plus the proposed nominee's written approval to place a candidate's name into nomination for vice president.

by DailyKingFish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:19:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I find the title misleading (none / 0)

And all these years I thought this was a pro-Democrat site. Maybe there should be a "writer's strike".

by ihaveseenenough on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:11:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (none / 0)

And these polls also give McCain the advantage of the large number of the HRC Deadenders that are currently voting for McCain in these matchups.

I would expect that 33% number to get trimmed down to around 15% or so, which would give him the nomination going away.

Hell yeah we did.

by Darknesse on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:08:38 PM EST

More power to 'em! (none / 0)

... so long as they're just messing up the polls.

We could wish you humble
under a ledge
with a mind that burns
through the skull's thin edge

Better so, in the sleety rain
Than plump and cozy in belly and brain.

by BlogSurrogate57 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:54:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How could this NOT get recced? (none / 0)

I awoke this morning to hear the talking heads at MSNBC spouting the Fla., Ohio, Penn. bullshit as if they're the ONLY swing states in this country. I'm part of the media and it's always annoyed the hell out of me how entrenched in the past it is. It's why newspapers are getting their asses kicked on the Internet.

What they're doing is ignoring the fact that Obama may have a different electoral map in favor of an past decade and century. I never thought I'd say this about my industry.

FUCK 'EM!!

I'm riding the Low Road Express. Join me at www.lowroadexpress.com

by LtWorf on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:38:01 PM EST

Re: How could this NOT get recced? (none / 0)

Lots of people don't like the reality of Fla, Pa, and Ohio. I never did either. But, here is where reviewing the history of Presidential politics can hit one over the head, so to speak. Lots of people have always hoped for the movement of the great interior West (as a Coloradan, I've supported that approach)--but, the Republicans have Westerner McCain who is on good terms with Latino voters and has a fairly decent environmental record. Add to that the "gun dance" in the West. When the battle is joined, the West may well slip through Democratic fingers again. Oh, Virginia is "iffy" tho promising--but then, there is naval hero McCain. In the past, the upper midwest has proved harder and harder as well. Nope; PA, Mich, Fla, and Ohio are very key.

by christinep on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:21:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How could this NOT get recced? (none / 0)

I didn't say they weren't important. What I did say is that the media ignores other possibilities. That's what no one wants to acknowledge.

I'm riding the Low Road Express. Join me at www.lowroadexpress.com

by LtWorf on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:55:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just don't this is relevant anymore. (2.00 / 1)

I understand you're trying to combat HRC supporters' diaries claiming, "WE'RE DOOOOOOOOMED." But I think we should follow Obama's lead. It's time to move on to McCain. Period.

by The Distillery on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:44:17 PM EST

Re: I just don't this is relevant anymore. (2.00 / 1)

I agree ... but this is the last bastion of Hillary supporters at this point. I'm simply trying to nudge 'em along the grieving process.

by DailyKingFish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

With all due respect, (none / 0)

I don't think most of them are actual Hillary supporters any longer.

by McNasty on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:52:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: With all due respect, (none / 0)

This is true. I think they're McCain supporters impersonating HRC supporters. I should have been more specific.

by The Distillery on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:16:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please stop the spin here..because we are not (2.00 / 3)

solid in other states either, okay. Obama right now is losing Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Wisconsin that is about 81 EVs right there. He is losing NC by 8 points to McCain while Clinton is winning it by 6 points. I am not saying that this is ominous of anything, but what i am saying is that we are not as solid as you are portraying us to be and Clinton is not as weak as you are trying to portray her.

Moreover, the states you said that Clinton is losing (by the way she is not losing Oregan, be honest and stop the spin please) represent about 43 EV, and she brings Arkansas and West Virginia winning them by a margin of 14 points and 8 points respectively.

Our supporters need to stop their bullshit spin because it's getting old and tiring. Just be honest...say things like they are.

by likelihood zero on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:53:35 PM EST

this is true... (none / 0)

however, I'd rather not win through bribery.

JFK did a whole lotta good, but ... some of that Culture of Poverty was created through his War on Poverty. Powerbrokers suck.

by BlogSurrogate57 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:57:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is true... (none / 0)

I don't get your reference to JFK.

By the way, the war on poverty was LBJ, not JFK. Do you remember the Great Society project of LBJ?

by likelihood zero on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:09:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The reference is to JFK winning the primary (none / 0)

in WV through bribing half the sheriffs in the state.

I was born during Reagan, so that is a little old for me, sorry. And thanks for the current events/history lesson!

by BlogSurrogate57 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:32:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The reference is to JFK winning the primary (none / 0)

Well, we don't call it bribing really (wink, wink), we call it street money. JFK did it everywhere during that election and so Nixon.

by likelihood zero on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:40:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please stop the spin here..because we are not (2.00 / 1)

He's winning VA. That NC poll supposes the AA vote to be 20%. That's low. More like 26%, if not higher.

by DailyKingFish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:09:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please stop the spin here..because we are not (none / 0)

Virginia: Poll conducted on May 18 by Virginia Commonwealth U-7 puts McCain 8 points ahead of Obama (44-36). SurveyUSA poll, conducted on May 16-18 gives a 7 points victory to McCain (49-42). An average of the 10 last polls conducted in Virginia puts McCain up by 5 points over Obama (49-44).

That says that Obama has some serious work to do.

by likelihood zero on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:21:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please stop the spin here..because we are not (none / 0)

That would almost be a persuasive argument, if only you had your facts straight. The SUSA poll has OBAMA up 49-42 in VA. http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=9901f8fc-034e-4a1d-ab36-f6e5c9 18614e

by ryharrin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:58:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please stop the spin here..because we are not (2.00 / 2)

The SUSA poll and the Virginia Commonwealth U-7 poll were conducted on the same date and they yielded different results (May 18). As for the average of the last 10 polls, go to www.pollster.com and do the average yourself.

I don't need to lie or distort or persuade you. I am just presenting the fact that Virginia is far from being in the bag, far from it, and so far there has been a disconnect between the senatorial race and the presidential one. The polls for both races do not look alike at all and they are not trending in the same direction and with the same magnitude. One has a pretty stable rate of increase, the other is almost stochastic. That is, Warner is flying high while Obama is barely struggling to be in the moe or lose to McCain.

Could this change? Absolutely. Which direction? It depends on how hard Obama works those Appalachian states? But right now, this is the picture that we have.

by likelihood zero on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:51:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please stop the spin here..because we are not (none / 0)

It is far from being in the bag. And it won't be- until we acknowledge we've picked a candidate and he gets to work.

by ihaveseenenough on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:19:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (2.00 / 1)

You are using the realclear averages, in most of these states the most recent polls haver her tied or ahead. Then again they are just polls and as people say on here ALL THE TIME, a poll in may is not an election in November.

by nyarch on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:05:48 PM EST

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (2.00 / 1)

Really? Polls don't matter? Then why, oh why, are Hillary supporters trumpeting that Quinapiac "swing state" polls today? I'm simply trying to bring them to reality, people.

by DailyKingFish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:10:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (2.00 / 1)

Did I mention those polls...NO. Either was averages are misleading always misleading, more so when they are based on 4 polls taken over the course of 3 or 4 months. If there is an argument to be made at least use actual polls and recent ones.

by nyarch on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:18:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its May people (2.00 / 2)

It's way too early to start looking to polls. We haven't even crowned a nominee yet. When we do that person will jump in the polls. And just wait until we start focusing on McCain.

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.

by jkfp2004 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:52:25 PM EST

sorry (2.00 / 2)

but... there is NO WAY that AN Y Democrat will loose WA or OR. I live here. I have always lived here. It is a fantasy to think Clinton or Obama would loose these states.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:58:45 PM EST

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (2.00 / 1)

these polls are highly untrustworthy at the moment.

emotions are super-charged for HIllary supporters at the moment. Many claim they won't support Obama which would worry me if 100% of them actually don't.

In fact, I'll give away my entire life savings if McCain does in fact walk away with 1/4 of the democratic vote come November. The cross-tabs don't reflect reality at the moment.

The "unity bounce" people are talking about is real. Adding a VP choice will also help as seen in SUSA's latest polling out of PA, NM, VA and CA.

by alex100 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:45:59 PM EST

Oh Please... (2.00 / 1)

I HAVE to point out:

Rasmussen is averaging a month's worth (sometimes 3 months worth) of polls, which is about 2 or 3 polls in some cases. Not to mention, some polls included are a three-way race, and some were in the field of two weeks with very little response.

I will also like to point out:

The most recent Rasmussen poll for MI has Obama losing by one, while Clinton is tied.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/state_topline s/michigan/michigan_toplines_may_7_2008

The most recent Rasmussen poll for WI has both Clinton and Obama losing by 4%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/wisconsin/election_200 8_wisconsin_presidential_election

The most recent Rasmussen poll for OR has both Obama and Clinton beating McCain, 14% and 6% respectively.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/state_topline s/oregon/toplines_oregon_general_electio n_may_7_2008

The most recent Rasmussen poll for IA has Obama beating McCain by 2% and Clinton losing by 3%. Obama gets 44% and Clinton gets 42%. Not bad I will say considering that state did not vote for Clinton in the caucus.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_pr esidential_election

Both Clinton and Obama beat McCain in Washington by 5% and 11% respectively.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/washington/election_20 08_washington_presidential_election

The only state I will say that Obama has a definitive advantage over Clinton, in which Clinton will have to work very hard to get in November is Colorado. Even then, Clinton is only 3% behind McCain (better than Kerry), while Obama beats him by 6%. All the above mentioned states, Clinton is performing at or above Kerry level (margin-wise), so give me a break with this diary.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:48:54 PM EST

Colorado hates Clinton. (1.50 / 2)

If you lived here, you'd know. We dodged a bullet this time.

I like her. But having her on the ticket would depress our turnout enough that I'm not sure we'd end up with Senator Udall in the end either. Obama on the other hand will help us break records in every state and local election. I can't wait.

by McNasty on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:53:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton LOSES CO, OR, WI, IA, MI and will have (none / 0)

Misleading diary. In states where no recent polls exist, the 5 poll average is misleading.

Only polls conducted in the last few days would give us an updated snapshot of the current reality.

Who cares about April polls on May 22nd?

by kingsbridge77 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:33:35 PM EST

I agree. No one cares about April polls on May 22 (none / 0)

And no one will care about May polls come September, October or November.

Let's remember, though, that no matter who is in the top spot there will be work to do.

I guarantee that if Hillary is perceived to have unfairly finagled her way into the nomination, whether factual or not, the numbers you see today will change. On the flip, Obama's numbers are obviously a reflection of the Dem voters who defect, in part, over their disappointment over Hillary's campaign. Both would have work to do and I am certain that our party, should it decide to stop bickering and unite, could pull it off for either of them.

I believe it was Hillary who noted that Bill was behind in all the polls when he got the first nod, but look what he did! We can and will win with either of our candidates, unless we ourselves decide to undermine that success. I really hope we don't give the Rethugs that satisfaction. I went through that back in 2004 and was sick when I work up to find out I had 4 more years of Dumbass. Please, let's not do that to ourselves again!

To kill one person is murder. To kill thousands is foreign policy." - Chinese writer Moh-Tze

by ILean Left on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:37:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (none / 0)

Demographics, county by county returns from the last three major national elections (GE 2000, GE 2004, Primary 2008), and poll trends are what to watch.

Washington and Oregon are blue regardless of the nominee. Every modern election cycle, we see the normal range of polls showing the Republicans ranging from a 5% win to a 10% loss in both states and every year that passes, they grow increasingly Democratic. The anti-war sentiment in Oregon that favored Obama will make John McCain totally radioactive there.

Michigan and Wisconsin, as your own stats show, are problematic for both Dems. This is increasingly obvious given the fact that Wisconsin has been trending away from us over the past decade and may fall out of blueness once and for all in 2008.

Colorado is a historically Republican state that Obama does well in this cycle. He significantly outperforms Clinton in Iowa and Colorado. By contrast, Clinton significantly outperforms Obama in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, and even North Carolina given the drastic and telling spread in the latest poll there.

At the end of the day,

Obama =

better in Colorado
better in Iowa
slightly better in Michigan & Wisconsin
slightly better in Oregon & Washington (which are blue regardless)

Clinton =
better in Pennsylvania
better in Ohio
better in Florida
better in New Hampshire
better in New Jersey
better in Massachusetts (which should be blue anyway)
better in Arkansas
better in West Virginia

If we expand the map to include long shots, Obama is better in Virginia and Clinton is better in Kentucky.

I like Clinton's map a lot more.

Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.

by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:37:38 PM EST

Title implies that these polls are determinative (2.00 / 1)

They are not. They are just the latest round of polls and may reflect voter fatigue with the primary and the sore loser tag that is probably starting to stick on Hillary. Polls also just reflect random variation and methodology of the pollster.

Averages of a number of polls taken over a longer period of time are much more valuable as predictors but even they must be considered with caution when using them to predict outcomes in November.

The belief people have that Hillary is stronger in larger swing states in the Fall comes from more than polls. Parts supporting these beliefs include:

1) She has actually won most (or won most of the areas - e.g., Missouri) of these states in the primaries;

2) her husband won these states - typically twice (except for Florida which was only once) - and she receives some benefit from the Clinton brand;

3) these states contain large numbers of swing voters who have been a larger part of her constituency in the primaries;

4) The consensus of polling has generally shown her doing better than Obama against McCain in these states

There are states, of course, where he has consistently polled better than her. But, ones like Iowa and Colorado are not as large and ones like Virginia, although relatively large, are so reliably Republican in presidential elections that one has to be cautious in touting them.

by lombard on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:38:55 PM EST

Re: Title implies that these polls are determinati (none / 0)

So, because Bill won these states, we can assume Hillary will automatically win them as well? Excuse me for a moment.

BWA-hahahahahahahahahah.

Ok. Most of the areas she won in Missouri go Republican in general election match-ups. Try and prove me wrong on that one.

You have any links to prove #3 and 4, or are you pulling that out of you know where?

by DailyKingFish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:48:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Since I have made a decision to behave better (2.00 / 1)

on this site, I know longer feel any need to recognize anyone behaving badly.

by lombard on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:50:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Title implies that these polls are determinati (1.50 / 2)

So, because Bill won these states, we can assume Hillary will automatically win them as well? Excuse me for a moment.

BWA-hahahahahahahahahah.

Ok. Most of the areas she won in Missouri go Republican in general election match-ups. Try and prove me wrong on that one.

You have any links to prove #3 and 4, or are you pulling that out of you know where?