"I have to say that it was the nastiness and silly stuff of the Obama supporters on this site that made stop and think about my choice."

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Three months ago, I and almost everyone I know supported Hillary and Barack equally. Now, I and everyone I know no longer support Hillary, BECAUSE OF HER NASTINESS AND DISHONESTY.

There are some rabid Obama supporters, as well as Hillary, and we're not always concise and mature. However, I do know Obama supporters who are putting their money where their mouths are, so to speak, and donating extraordinary sums of money to PA schools via DonorsChoose.org, knitting NICU hats for preemies via Knitters for Obama, and doing other kind acts of service inspired by him.

Don't let a few nasty folks on the internet cloud your judgment of Obama.

Obama can win the general because he motivates and inspires independents and left-leaning conservatives, which expands on the party base. He can win the general because McCain, while experienced, is a candidate who would like to keep us involved in Iraq for an infinite amount of time and the American people are not happy with the war, overall. Obama can win the general election because BIG STATES that go blue will always go blue. Primaries are different than the general election. Who wins which states in the primary doesn't necessarily reflect on who will win the state in the general election.

Rallyround- I'm completely for Obama. Don't care the least for the Clintons. But discussions on this site will not happen. Your post will sink like a stone. And I don't see anyone answering your main question. Let me. I can't stand Hillary. If she is president I will turn off the TV for years. But I'll vote for her without a doubt.

"Perhaps the Clinton argument has merit. If Obama can't compete in states with large electoral counts in the general election, then Clinton is a better choice."

I understand your thought process, and I would respectfully suggest that you have to consider the *huge* negatives that HRC has among non-democrats when you think about electability. I think you also need to consider the way in which HRC as the Democratic candidate will absolutely gavanize the right behind McCain to a degree that (I believe) will not happen if Obama is the Democratic nominee. Finally, I would argue that Obama and everything he has come to represent gives the democrats a far better alternative in a "change election" than HRC does. I think this will come to be important in November.

Both sides have rabid supporters who say stupid and meanspirited things. That has nothing to do with electability, as I see it. And Obama has consistently run a clean and decent campaign. Look at the *candidate's* words and deeds -- not those of the candidate's looniest supporters. After all, the candidate is the one who will be President if he/she takes this thing in November.

"Perhaps the Clinton argument has merit. If Obama can't compete in states with large electoral counts in the general election, then Clinton is a better choice."

You're right - it is the "Clinton argument" conjured up because they are running out of serious arguments. It also isn't based on any facts - just conjecture. Have you heard any serious non-clinton related commentators making that point? I doubt it.

Who says Obama can't compete? The Clintons, that's who. Do you really think he'll lose democratic strongholds like CA and MA because Clinton won them? Please don't fall so easily for Clinton talking points.

As for OH and PA - look how Obama has closed the gap there - even though, unlike Clinton, he was a complete unknown in those states. Imagine how well He'll do when he has even more money nd the whole Democratic establishment behind him.

I've been saying for months that one of the biggest threats to an Obama victory in the fall are his vocal, online supporters. Now there are other threats and I've been mulling over posting something about one later today, but the one that we can do something about and over which we have dominion is the tone of our argument. And, besides the fact that whole segments of the Democratic Party and almost 50& of those who've voted have been ridiculed and dismissed like it's a game, if the vocal Obama supporters carry this tone into the fall campaign, those who might get alienated at that point will almost certainly have some where else to turn.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/clintons-argument-general-elec.php

The Democratic nominees since 1992 have fared better in states that they lost during the nomination campaign (winning 75% of those states in the general election) than they have in states that they won (winning 62% of those states).

I've been saying for months that one of the biggest threats to an Obama victory in the fall are his vocal, online supporters.

You are making the same mistake I have seen people all over the internet make, that I've made myself, and seems unavoidable when we are all so busy looking at ourselves.

We are a tiny fraction of the voters out there, people. WE ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT.

Disabuse yourself of that notion right now.

LOL!

"Perhaps the Clinton argument has merit. If Obama can't compete in states with large electoral counts in the general election, then Clinton is a better choice."

You're right - it is the "Clinton argument" conjured up because they are running out of serious arguments. It also isn't based on any facts - just conjecture. Have you heard any serious non-clinton related commentators making that point? I doubt it.

Who says Obama can't compete? The Clintons, that's who. Do you really think he'll lose democratic strongholds like CA and MA because Clinton won them? Please don't fall so easily for Clinton talking points.

As for OH and PA - look how Obama has closed the gap there - even though, unlike Clinton, he was a complete unknown in those states. Imagine how well He'll do when he has even more money and the whole Democratic establishment behind him.

In direct response to your question, no.

Clinton's refusal to admit even a slight flaw in judgement over her war vote(s), coupled with the emphasis on rewarding "loyalty" within her staff, reminds me too much of the current White House occupant.

I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for her, so if she's the nominee, that portion of my ballot will remain blank or become a write-in.

"If Obama can't compete in states with large electoral counts in the general election"
Obama can win Ohio/Penn, i don't know or care about Florida. He also does better in most large blue states as well according to polls.

No one seems to get this - but Texas in play if Obama is on the ballot.

There are so many downballot races that could go and should go for Democrats that it could make the difference here for generations.

We started the process in '06, thanks to Howard Dean. But this doesn't get across to people who don't live in Red or Purple states apparently - everyone is quite used to either abusing us or ignoring us. Texas was a Democratic dead zone in '04 and in '00.

And when that happens, we don't vote. And when we don't, the presidential race goes to the GOP.

If we're talking of the campaigns themselves, Hillary has consistently been the attacker and has resorted to very nasty stuff. The Obama campaign has been remarkably restrained in its criticism of Hillary.

A typical sequence is for Hillary to claim Obama is unfit/not ready to be commander-in-chief. Obama says she's a capable person and would be a good president. The attacks on Obama continue and Obama suffers in poll results. So the Obama campaign starts to compare specific experience and to stress the importance of judgment, comparing how judgments on Iraq worked out in the real world. How nasty of Obama!

Hillary pumps up her foreign policy resume. People who were present at events where Hillary implies that she played a pivotal role come forward and say sorry, Hillary did some good things, but her role was incidental. The peace agreement in Ireland is a good example. How nasty of Obama!

When Hillary shoots herself in the foot with an exaggeration like being under sniper fire in Bosnia, which she was using to bolster her claims of experience, a network produces footage from the trip that shows her recollection to be wildly inaccurate. Any reference the Obama campaign makes to the real disparity between what Hillary claimed and what the video showed is beyond the pale. How nasty of Obama!

And then there's this whole poor, helpless Hillary line. I really do not see any evidence of a bunch of men ganging up on poor little Hillary except for one case in the early debates when she was the clear frontrunner and the other candidates focused their criticisms on her. That is what candidates do when there's a clear frontrunner. The frontrunner is the person the other candidates all have to catch. The other candidates happened to be men and she happened to be a woman so some people perceived this as a bunch of men bullying a woman. I confess I didn't like watching it. But if the frontrunner had been a man, it wouldn't have bothered me a bit.

Hillary does represent a lot of criticism that comes her way as a bunch of bully boys attacking a helpless little girl. Anybody who sincerely says extending Hillary's long divisive campaign may cost the Democrats the White House is savaged as a bully boy trying to drive this poor helpless woman from the race. How nasty of Obama! What does this amount to? Her answer to sincere concern about the effects of her divisiveness is to double her bet on divisiveness, especially along gender lines.

This defense has worked like a charm for Hillary. That is amazing considering how it contradicts her claims to being incredibly tough, ready for anything, and able to stand up to the Republican attack machine better than Obama. Is she tough, or does she need rescuing?

Consider also things Obama's campaign is not doing but would be if it were managed in a typical way. They would point out that in fact, the Clintons' inability to cope with the Republican attack machine wiped out much of the 1990s and prevented the Clintons from achieving great things. The Clintons faced the attack machine, won the White House for themselves, but lost both houses of Congress and the hope of enacting a progressive agenda. That is experience, yes, but it's not evidence of success.

By normal political rules, Obama's campaign should be like Hillary's and refer to all the dark and terrible secrets about Hillary that haven't come to light yet - things that in the hands of the Republican attack machine will be devastating, unanswerable, certain to destroy Hillary's candidacy. You have to remember that it makes no difference to the attack machine whether there are any dark secrets about Obama and Hillary or not. The attack machine will invent "secrets" as necessary. Both Democrats will get savaged. The difference in the campaign is that Hillary is saying Obama is herself hinting at dark secrets in Obama's closet, and saying he can't win because of these things that haven't come out yet but, by implication, the Republicans are sure to find. She's lending credibility to Republican attacks before they even start. Another example of Hillary's willingness to help the Republicans in order to hurt Obama: saying McCain has the experience needed for the White House and Obama doesn't. You can go on for days listing the things Hillary has said about Obama that are misleading, untrue or disloyal to the Democratic Party. It's hard to find many comparable things on Obama's side.

Nevertheless, we're talking about rallying to Hillary's support because she's been so mistreated. When she's unfairly attacked, I'll defend her. But attacks by Obama's campaign on her are as nothing compared to the attacks Hillary has heaped on Obama. I guess the anecdote about the woman denied medical care is taken as evidence Hillary is persecuted. In my view, Hillary's story was defensible and I regret the NY Times story and the hospital jumping in demanding she stop telling it, compounding Hillary's embarrassment. But note: Obama's campaign didn't plant that story. On the other hand, Hillary's campaign does plant things with Matt Drudge. In fact, there are reports of a staff member assigned to working with Drudge.

The Clinton campaign tried to get stories written about an Obama weathermen connection. The Clinton campaign circulated the photo of Obama in African native dress. The Clinton campaign tried to marginalize Obama as just another black candidate for America to ignore because well, it was the right thing to do with Jesse Jackson so it's right for Obama - they're both black, right? Hillary met with Richard Mellon Scaife, a chief funder of the attack machine, and all but encouraged Scaife to attack Obama over the sermons of Wright.

Yet Hillary is the victim in all this. The Clinton campaign's most successful attack of all is this myth that she is simultaneously the world's toughest, most experienced leader, ready on day 1 for anything, and a helpless victim cruelly mistreated by bullies while running a campaign as pure as the driven snow. The Clinton campaign goofed in a lot of ways, but they have also masterfully manipulated voters and media alike in too many ways to count.

Ellen, I hope this post doesn't degenerate into a "whose supporters are meaner" debate. It gets nasty on both sides, and it's impossible to quantify who is nastier. Everyone has war stories. There is certainly more anti-Clinton bullying here, unfortunately, but that's a numbers game. There are many more Obama supporters here than Clinton supporters. I expect that it goes the other way at sites with heavy Clinton support.

Regarding electability in OH/PA, I've often argued that primary wins are a poor measure of general election results because they primarily measure the preferences of active Democrats, the vast majority of whom will will vote in Dem in the general either way. Secondly, somebody has to lose primary. If you pit two great candidates against one another (and I think that Clinton and Obama are both great candidates), one of them will win, but that doesn't mean that the other isn't competitive. An extreme case to prove the example is MA. MA voted for Clinton, but of course, it will go Dem no matter who wins the nomination.

The are other ways of measuring electability, but unfortunately, none of them are very good. I've argued in other places about the unreliability of head-to-head match-ups. Some o the best information comes, I think, from demographic preferences, as those will probably remain somewhat consistent in the general. Clinton has a leg up with blue-collar voters, older voters, and women, but Obama is very strong among independents, moderate Republicans, and young voters. So it's also hard to quantify.

To me, the biggest electability points in Obama's favor have been the effectiveness of his campaign and his ability to energize formerly disaffected demographics, such as young voters. But that's no better than an educated guess.

In the end, I think that either one would beat McCain, and I'll be voting for the one that I think would make the best president.

Rallyround: Thanks for this post - for your frankness and for the discussion that it has spawned.

I have found myself somewhat on the other side of the coin. I have been a Clinton supporter who has - from time to time - been angered with some of the twists and turns her campaign has taken (most especially, her husband), and have considered switching my primary support.

There is never a doubt that I will be supporting our eventual nominee, and I have appealed for sanity to prevail among supporters of both candidates. Yet, I also believe that Sen. Clinton is more likely to win and is more likely to be a great President. (Granted, Sen. Obama is more likely to be a transformative President in terms of tolerance and unity - two things that are very important to me - but, I am trying to look at the bigger pictures, too.)

Thanks again for this wake-up call to some of our more fervent (too fervent?) friends.

Thank you for that post. There is another issue that should be of concern to those who want to see a Democrat win in November. Obama's greatest strength is in caucusing. Clinton is more successful in simple ballot voting. In November Obama won't be able to benefit from his superior ability to organize caucuses, nor his youthful supporters' ability to persuade through their enormous energy and enthusiasm, because there will be no caucuses in November. It will be a simple vote.

Thanks for making this post, Ellen. I have been an avid Obama supporter since he was a footnote in the pages of The Nation, and I've been working hard for his campaign. At the same time, I have some nagging doubts about whether this candidate - no matter how shrewd and capable he is - can actually win the election. As we know polls don't mean much, and they certainly don't mean much six or seven months ahead of time; but you still have to stop and wonder when you see Obama trailing McCain so badly in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Can a Democrat win while losing all three of those, and New Hampshire? I know we like the theory that Obama can redraw the map - and I earnestly hope he can - by winning Colorado, Nevada and maybe even Virginia, but that is still just a theory. And it's a big risk to be taking.

This does not mean I think HRC would do much better. I think she would stand an excellent chance of losing even without the baggage of the disputed nomination. All the same, she has the necessary support to make sure NJ, PA, and other states that have been essential to recent Democratic coalitions in our column.

I have to say that it was the nastiness and silly stuff of the Obama supporters on this site that made stop and think about my choice.

I'm sorry, but this just bewilders me. You're going to make your choice about the next president of the United States based on what some people with fake names said on a website? That simply does not compute.

As to your substantive point: It's a crapshoot. My own hunch is that between Clinton's own frequently Republican-lite record (AUMF, Kyl-Lieberman) and campaigning (John McCain is a moderate who's qualified to be CiC), Clinton may have blown her own shot at moderates. I don't think there's any question the Obama will take CA, NY, NJ. PA and OH may be a little tougher, due in no small part to Clinton's scorched earth demagoguery on NAFTA (she peed in her own pool on that one, too.... so much for smart and ready on day one).
My biggest problem with Clinton's electability is that, according to current models which seem to me pretty accurate (again, it's a crapshoot), she needs Florida to win the Electoral College. I know she's ahead of McCain in the polls right now, but I don't see that holding. I think Florida is Red for at least one more cycle. In any case, I don't want to have to rely on that state to put a Democrat in the White House.

That's up for debate. It won't be like it was for Bush, but McCain definitely has some religious right support (Hagee, Parsley). These are people who have the flag next to their pulpits, who say the pledge before they pray, and listen to Bush speak about faith on retreats. If you aren't evangelical or surrounded by them, you just have no idea...

I have every idea - I'm surrounded by them, too. And I disagree with you about what the RR will do this time.

I really do. Bush disillusioned a bunch of them, as it is.

A couple of thoughts...

1) The big state argument is hollow. Any dem will win California and New York. HRC will NOT win Florida. Pennsylvania and Ohio are toss ups, so the better ground game will have the best chance to win those states.

2) The media needs to get a hobby. Obama will not get 100% of the vote. There will be blacks that will vote for McCain instead of Obama, just like there would be women that would vote for McCain over HRC. Find a couple of white dems that say that they won't vote for Obama is not a story.

Ellen,

I look to you for tough minded comments and I think you waver a bit here.

Neither of these two impressive candidates is responsible for their supporters, thank God. Time for the usual Wellington quote "I don't know if they frighten the enemy but by God they terrify me".

Sadly , between the two candidates it's a duel of competing prejudices: racism vs. sexism.(Reminds me of Frost's poem "but hate is also great and would suffice")/ Personally I think racism is more apt to affect the election: more chance of disappointed HRC supporters punishing Obama in November.

Of course Blacks might stay home , and will ,but they aren't likely to vote for McCain out of pique-they'd be going against their interests and convictions. But normally republican women considering crossing over for HRC (as my conservative Catholic friends did for JFK in 60)- could both punish Obama and vote their pocketbooks.

Who cares what stupid things people say in service of either candidate?

The best look at the question the post is posing is the SurveyUSA 50 state polls from a month ago. It shows states Hillary does better in, and states Obama does better in. Obama won more electoral votes in that scenario, and since then he has displayed greater relative strength than Clinton in the Gallup and Rasmussen viz a viz McCain than he displayed on that date (he's stronger now in relation to her).

There are many states she will lose or even fail to compete in that he would win, and other states she will make competitive that he would win in a walk.

Her electability thing is a silly myth. You don't get elected President of Pennsylvania. It's an aggregate concept.

"But normally republican women considering crossing over for HRC (as my conservative Catholic friends did for JFK in 60)- could both punish Obama and vote their pocketbooks."

That's a wrap. I say it this way. A large segment of Hillary's base just needs to define its self interest a little more narrowly than usual, and, unless McCain has a stroke, he's the next President.

As an Ohioan, I am 90% confident that any Dem will carry the state here, almost without question, really.

Gotta remember - we were not long ago caught up in several Republican scandals and we now have a strong Democratic presence in the Statehouse that so far - has been well received.

I think the Obama fall-off here was knee jerk reaction to the Kitchen-Sink crap, she had the 'oh pity me', SNL kiss and make up appearance the Saturday before our primary. She appeared on "The Daily Show' the night before. She threw the Nafta thing out a few days before, and Rezko's trial started the day before. Finally, the Stephanie Power dust-up occurred right before the primary, too.

The NAFTA thing was ridiculous altogether - there is a world of difference - especially here - between trading with Canada and trading with Mexico. Who cares if they re-assured Canada? And the meeting was far more informal and less meaningful than Clinton played it to be, too.

Canada - for those who are not aware - accounts for 20% of our exports, has strong labor unions, aggressive labor laws and similar pay ranges as the US. It is in our great interest to encourage trade with Canada, and when you apply the percentage to Canada - 76% of their imports (value wise) come from us.

In other words - had Goulsbee met with the Mexican embassy - it would have been quite different. Ohioans have no problem with Canadian trade, we have real problems with Mexican trade in certain contexts and even bigger issues with work going to China.

But when it comes to Clinton vs Obama and who is better poised to nail McCain. The question to me is more - who is most likely to be run under the bus, truck and train by the Republican low-lifes?
That would be Clinton, around here - she is infinitely more prone to getting blasted by the GOP thugs. They will constantly replay 'That 90's Show' - you can bet on that.

McCain has some really big vulnerabilities that Obama can exploit and has made some REALLY stupid statements in the past year that an effective ad campaign can use to pretty well lay the guy to waste. He has a voting record on many issues that will totally kill him on both veterans and national security issues. There are a number of ways to make the guy utterly unsavory to many. He will also be at a big loss when it comes to African Americans.

Obama and the Hispanic vote versus McCain - Obama wins it, almost without a doubt. I have exceptionally long ties to Ohio Hispanics (my ex-wife is 1/2 Hispanic, a long time business associate of my own family is, as well) are that would leave me to believe that Obama would win that versus McCain by at least 10%.

I have great concerns about health care, too. I'm self-employed so it would be a boon to me, for sure - and make it easier for me to retain better qualified people.

Recent polls of doctors have shown a trend over the last five years with 59% of doctors preferring the nation move not just to what is wrongly called 'Universal' by Clinton and Obama, but to single payer fully inclusive - screw the insurance companies style coverage.

To me - Clinton's plan with a MANDATE would surely scare the crap out of some people and set the efforts for what the doctors want back even further. I think the opposition that plays party politics will have a harder time beating back Obam's plan.

Ellen, you wrote: "Perhaps the Clinton argument has merit. If Obama can't compete in states with large electoral counts in the general election..."

Perhaps the Clinton argument DOES NOT have merit. Do you really think that Obama will not win California, New York, Massachusettes, New Jersey, etc. in November? Do you really think that the majority of women will not back Obama, and let John McCain appoint the next two US Supreme Court justices?

I won't deny that racism (and sexism) is pervasive throughout this country, and the Reverend Wright is a risky proposition, but John McCain wants permanent bases and a blank check in Iraq...he wants to bomb Iran...he wants the economically challenged to suck it up through a reccession without a helping hand...he embraces a police state that scours your emails and phone calls..and he wants to obliterate a women's choice. And, he cannot mobilize the evangelical right wing without Hillary Clinton as his opponent. I just don't think Hillary's argument is valid.

What on earth is going on here? Are you seriously implying that rallyround is a troll? I can understand that some concern trolls do come across with similar innocent-sounding questions, and if you had posted this right at the start of the thread you might have had a point.

But the 100-odd replies here have made it pretty plain that this is in fact a real young woman who has heard some fairly bogus arguments and is trying to figure out how seriously she should take them.

So I guess I should post some actual content since I popped into this thread:

1. I've been pretty turned off by Hillary, but anyone who calls himself a Democrat and votes for McCain has rocks in his head. And 95% of the vote-McCain people will cool off and vote right. All you gotta do is think about the Supreme Ct.

2. The big states argument is specious. As has been said above, a Democratic contest is nothing like a general election. We'll win CA and NY, we'll lose FL, no matter what happens.

3. I wouldn't worry too much about the whole "disenfranchised voter" kerfuffle in MI and FL. This is one case where the fact that 95% of the electorate is low-information voters works to enhance sanity. The vast majority of people in FL or MI are probably almost entirely oblivious to this whole thing.

4. As has also been said in this thread, don't worry about what a bunch of people with fake names and silly pictures argue about on the Internet. Almost nobody who's gonna vote in November even knows what TPM (or even DKos) is.

Enjoy your voting on Primary Day!

the Doctor's poll I was refer to before
is here

As a native Texan, I feel I have to point out that up until the mid-1980s, we had elected Dems everywhere... from the top on down. I know its been painted with this broad brush over the past decade, as some sort of monolithic far-right state thanks to its connections to Bush, but it quite simply is not

O I do love you for that - I didn't put that in my comment because I've said it so many times that I hate boring people to death with the same things over and over.

Texas was a Democratic state a lot longer than it has been Repug. We weren't necessarily the most liberal Democratic state, but on the other hand, there is a big fat pocket of real liberalism in this state. Look at Ralph Yarborough. Look at our beloved Molly Ivins, and Ann Richards. Look at Jim Hightower, look at some of our local politicians in Dallas County. I could go on and on.

We've been demonized because of a goddamn Yankee prep school cheerleader from Connecticut. I am so damn sick of Bushes invading this state I could choke.

Respectfully, the last thing I would do is change my loyal support for Senator Clinton because an independent like you is writing that you might not vote for her in the general election and you will remain an independent unless Obama is nominated. That doesn't sway this 30-plus year Democrat in the slightest.

You gotta do what you gotta do friend. If you want to vote for John McCain or stay home and sulk if Obama isn't nominated, I will have to live with that. . .even if Hillary loses the General by one vote.

Even though I am with Senator Clinton through the nomination and, hopefully beyond, there is 0 chance that I would vote for someone other than Senator Obama if he is the Democratic nominee. I would never vote for John McCain, not in a million years, and staying home and sulking would be the same as voting for Senator McCain.

You know, my 18 year-old son, an avid Obama supporter who also devotes his time for the Senator, etc. asked me why I'm not supporting Senator Obama, and he then said that I should vote for Obama because if he loses all of the young people who are so into Obama will become disillusioned. I told him that he has often become disillusioned over the years when I didn't give him what he wanted, and I also told him that he is a better young man for it. Young folks and you are going to have to accept, or you may have to accept, that sometimes you put your dime in the gumball machine and you don't get the flavor you were hoping for. That's politics, and that's life, but that is hardly cause for casting a vote for John McCain.

ellen:

FL is not the only path to the presidency. That's because Democrats have traditionally followed this type of "put all your electoral eggs into a few big swing states" strategy.

The March 6 SurveyUSA poll that another commenter mentioned included 30,000 registered likely voters in 50 states. It was such a fascinating poll that I spent several hours analyzing it.

McCain-Clinton, Clinton wins 276-262 (that includes winning battleground states by 5 points or less), for a margin of 14. Battleground states are 135, while solid/leaning (wins by +6 or more) states for each candidate are even, McCain with 201, Clinton 203.

McCain-Obama, Obama wins by the larger margin of 280-258, a margin of 22. Potential battleground states are more with 186, while solid/lean states for Obama are also more at 229, while McCain only has 123, which means that McCain has to win many more toss-up battles.

For a rundown of all the states, Clinton-Obama:

"Dark blue states, big & small, both Obama & Clinton win":
Both Clinton and Obama solidly win the big traditional dark blue states by margins of +10: CA, NY, IL, MA, and this time OH also, for a total of 139 EVs. They also solidly win the small dark blue states of VT, RI, CT, MD, and DC by +10, for another 24 EVs. That's a 166 total for both.

"Strongly Pro-Obama, but anti-Clinton states", which swing solidly for Obama, but swing almost equally solidly for McCain against Clinton: CO (Obama wins +9, Clinton loses -6), IA (+9, -5), OR (+8, -5), and NV (+5, -8), for a total of 28 EVs (which is 1 FL). Obama is obviously the safer candidate to carry these states.

There are only 2 "Pro-Clinton, but anti-Obama states": AR (6) Obama -20, Clinton +11, and WV (5) Obama -18, Clinton +5. Only 11 EVs, so advantage Obama 28 vs 11 among the "Either 1 Dem but not the other Dem" states.

There are also 4 "Weak pro-Obama, but solidly anti-Clinton states": NH (4) Obama +2, Clinton -8; ND (3) Obama +4, Clinton -19, and VA (13) where Obama is 47-47 even with McCain, but Clinton is -10. The 20 EVs here = 1 Ohio. There are no weak pro-Clinton, but solidly anti-Obama states.

"Striking distance states where Obama is within 5 points of McCain but Clinton is farther out: there are 5, NC (15) Obama -2, Clinton -8; SC (8) Obama -3, Clinton -6; NE (5) Obama -3, Clinton -17; SD (3) Obama -4, Clinton -8, AK (3) Obama -5, Clinton -21. These 34 EVs equal 1 Texas.

"Striking distance states where Clinton is within 5 points of McCain but Obama is farther out: only 2, TN (11) where Clinton is even with McCain 46-46, Obama -16; and MO (11) has Clinton -4, Obama -6. That's a total of 22 EVs, but again advantage Obama, 34 vs. 22 among "striking distance" states.

"Small light blue states that are more pro-Obama, less pro-Clinton", where Obama wins by +5, and Clinton by less than +5:
MN (10) Obama +7, Clinton +4; DE (3) Obama +9, Clinton +5, HI (4), Obama+30, Clinton +4, WI (10) Obama +11, Clinton +4, and ME (4) Obama +14, Clinton +6), NM (5) Obama +7, Clinton even. These add 36 EVs, or another Texas. Obviously much safer in Obama's hands.

Finally, the medium-big swing states: Clinton solidly wins FL (27) by +9 against McCain, while Obama is –2 against McCain. Clinton beats McCain in NJ (15) by +5, while Obama is only even 43-43. MI (17) is a tossup battleground state for all 3: Obama is 45-44 over McCain, while Clinton is even with McCain at 44-44. PA (21) is a battleground mostly for Clinton and McCain, 47-46, while Obama is –5 behind McCain 42-47. TX (34) shows McCain winning, but Obama losing only by –1, while Clinton loses by –7.

All other states are dark red, beyond striking distance of either Clinton or Obama.

Clinton loses by less than Obama in the South: AL, GA, KS, KY, LA, MI, and OK (60 EVs), where Obama is 15-20 points behind McCain, while Clinton is behind -10 points or more. Clinton is closest in OK, where she is -8, and Obama is -24 (his biggest deficit against McCain anywhere in the country). Obama comes closest in KS (his mother's home state), where he and Clinton are both about -10.

Obama loses by less than Clinton in the Rocky-Midwest: ID (Obama -13, Clinton -30), MT (Obama -8, Clinton -30), UT (Obama -11, Clinton -38), WY (Obama -19, Clinton -33), and IN (Obama -11, Clinton -17) for 26 EVs. Note that Clinton loses by +30 points, and is much more unpopular in the Rocky-Midwest than Obama is in the South. McCain’s home state AZ (10) also stays red, with Obama –12, Clinton –15, an interestingly closer margin. 106 EVs total that are dark red.

And that's all the states. Clearly, Obama can safely keep more light blue states, and also puts more many more small states into play than does Clinton, and has a fighting chance in the big battleground states. OTOH, Clinton must win nearly all the big swing states, and simultaneously puts a number of small states in danger.

By the way - Western Dem - I loved and still love Gary Hart.

He wuz robbed and so wuz we.

I've seen you mention in several spots that you are giving serious consideration to Hillary because you need health insurance.

I'm curious how her plan to force you to buy insurance will help. If you could afford health insurance, then I would assume that you would already have health insurance. Hillary making health insurance mandatory will not magically make it affordable.

Before you make the jump to Hillary ask yourself why she hasn't addressed the enforcement mechanism of her mandated health insurance plan. If you still can't afford insurance after she makes it mandatory, what will be the penalties that you'll then have to pay under her system?

Actually I'm interested in health insurance for my parents at this point. I'm not sure which of the plans is actually better, I think maybe it's which one can make it happen if elected.

I feel ya. That becomes so major when you reach a certain point in life.

I've been grateful both my parents are gone ever since the Medicare drug bill was passed. No one, including the people who drafted it, I suspect, knows what it means.

It's nightmare time of life anyway, and anything that makes it more complicated or difficult is that much more exhausting.

For what it's worth - I think they'll both be under a lot of pressure to get a healthcare bill passed.

*cough!*cough!* Concern Troll *cough!*cough!*

If you're concerned about the relative strengths of the 2 candidates on the electoral map, go to www.electoral-vote.com where they have a map of each of the 2 Dems vs McCain, updated daily with new polls factored in.

Right now each of the match ups is very competitive with McCain - with Obama slightly stronger. However, they do it in slightly different ways. Hillary wins Florida, Barack doesn't. But Barack wins 4 states west of the Mississippi that she doesn't - Washington, Oregon, Iowa, & North Dakota plus a statistical tie in Colorado that could go either way.

Of course right now none of this means anything because they haven't yet campaigned against McCain. My guess is that either Democrat will win going away based on what happens in October/November.

Hi rallyround and All,

Perhaps the Clinton argument has merit. If Obama can't compete in states with large electoral counts in the general election, then Clinton is a better choice. After all, what does matter mathematically is not a nationwide poll of democrats but polls and results from states considering the weight they bring in electoral counting.

The primary election is very different from the general election. BHO running against HRC is very different from BHO running against JSM3. The Democrats should do very well against him, no matter who the candidate is. Hillary winning a few states against Barack says nothing about who would win the state in the General Election.

IOW, Hillary's argument makes no sense.

I have to say that it was the nastiness and silly stuff of the Obama supporters on this site that made stop and think about my choice. I still may go for Obama in my upcoming primary, but unless I see more detailed offerings from Obama's people and supporters on issues and how he can win the general, I may go for Hillary.

Is that a threat? ;-)

You should vote for the person in the primary who you think best supports your view of where the party and the country should go. Comments from the peanut gallery should have very little to do with your choice. If you don't like political noise, don't read it. It's not our job to do your research for you. :-)

The general election is months away, and it'll be months after the party platform will be finalized at the Convention.

Hillary can't win the nomination, so worrying about whether she or Barack would be better in the General Election is a waste of time.

He will win the General Election by having more people who believe in his vision for the country, rather than JSM3's.

DON'T PANIC. :-)

My $0.02.

Personally I trust what McCain says more than Hillary. BUT, after what I have heard come out of McCain, I have come to terms with Hillary and will vote for her. McCain is BUSH v3.0 - more war, no economic reform, forget any possibility of real healthcare.

If you put a gun to my head, I'll take my chances with Hillary.

Obama=change
Hillary=status quo
McCain= I hope the rapture comes soon.

Hi everyone! :)

I'm a cheeky, partying, 22-year-old college student ( just look at my pic!) who, until very recently, has been supporting Obama from the very beginning! But, golly, lately I've begun to wonder, is he really the one I want answering that phone at 3 AM in the morning? I mean, has he really crossed that all-important Commander In Chief threshold (that Hillary and John McCain have, mind you) after only one dumb speech he gave 2 years ago???

And his supporters (gasp!)... so MEAN! I was all set to vote for him,totally, until they were mean like that and stuff.

On top of all this, Grandpa and Auntie Em have serious medical conditions after selling their organs to send me here to State Tech U. Golly, what if Obama's health care plan really is the rotten, fraudulent, scam that Senator Clinton believes it is? And besides, how can I really trust all these crazy polls showing him beating McCain when Senator Clinton has the gravitas, the wisdom, and the UNBENDING COURAGE to lead on Day 1?

I just don't know. I'm just very, very concerned about the whole thing, ya know?

Leroy - McCain hasn't passed any commander-in-chief test (which never was a word I ever heard in campaigns until Bush wrapped himself in it in 2004). . Heck, he can't even get the Al Qaeda thing straight, while showing a maniac obsession over them in Iraq, or Iran, or Tahiti...But me thinks there's a bit on sarcasm at work in your post.

Originally I was for Edwards though I

I was too.

I didn't know who I was going to support after he dropped out, but I was never attracted to Sen Clinton because she is too conservative for me.

But basically, what caused me to become a believer about Obama was what I saw here on primary night and what I felt in the air. I think both of them have good ideas and I am not hung up on the details.

I can't say who might be better at getting something through Congress, but we're going to have a clear majority when this is over, which helps whoever it is.

I really don't understand this meme that Obama can't win - he IS winning! He's winning by every measure and he's done it against the fiercest and most accomplished political machine of my lifetime.

I never would have believed he could pull it off if I didn't see it with my own eyes.

This is Hillary's trick - she's distracting you from the fact that SHE can't win - despite all her many enormous advantages, she's STILL losing.

C'mon - step back and look at this objectively. If Barack can beat the Clintons (and he has) you can't be serious that he can't beat McCain...

"I have to say that it was the nastiness and silly stuff of the Obama supporters on this site that made stop and think about my choice. I still may go for Obama in my upcoming primary, but unless I see more detailed offerings from Obama's people and supporters on issues and how he can win the general, I may go for Hillary."

I've always found this type of argument silly. I've seen it advanced on this site and elsewhere. I, for one, support a candidate for two reasons:

1. Their positions on issues, and
2. Ability to inspire.

That said, if my candidate of choice has some vocal jackasses for supporters, that's not going to negatively reflect on the candidate--or at least it shouldn't. I've seen vile posts by both Obama and Hillary supporters. I separate the wheat from the chaff, but I don't throw the wheat into the furnace with the chaff. That's just nonsensical.

At the end of the day, you should vote for who you think would be best as President. Whether that be Clinton or Obama, that's your choice to make.

I agree completely with ChrisNBama. There are a lot of over the top on both sides, what that has to do with your candidate eludes me.

I choose the very cool, laid back Obama because he is just that, I'm voting for him, not some hot head.

Rallyround,
You have gotten over 200 comments here, sure there are some people who are out and out thoughtless, and even if you were initially Hillary - which is irrelevant to me unless you throw Molotov's without sourcing them - these types do not know how to promote a position without making rants of suspicion.

That's regrettable, but no reason to walk out.

While I cannot agree with your thinking that Hillary will be more determined because of her last failed attempt, I don't begrudge you that. I would ask you to re-read my prior post on the idea of mass persuasion and the perils of promulgating a program that will certainly be attacked viciously by allowing a 'non-starter' for many people into the argument.

Hillary is going to face a massive anybody-but -Hillary campaign that will knock you silly if she gets the nomination. If she would then manage to win, she'll not be inspiring enough for many people to be pro-actively involved in government anymore than they were last year. Why? Because many people are going to adopt the same-old-shit attitude. As a fully aware adult in the 90's I can assure you - it was not largely a pleasant experience in the political arena for most Democrats. Sure things were better financially, but the soap-opera that was the Clinton Whitehouse seriously eroded its effectiveness on many, many issues.

Don't kid yourself - without massive support from behind the lines by a large number of citizens letting their legislators know that they are serious about health reform, nothing meaningful will get done. Ultimately - it needs to be single payer, national health care. You get there one-step at a time.

Great post, great comments, you got it down to a personal level.

Well done.

Rallyround,

I just want to assure you that Obama can win this race and make the change to comprehensive healthcare. Clinton is less reliable than you might think. I have many years being involved in politics and I think Obama will make a profound difference in the country. My worry is that Bush will attack Iran which would derail democratic chances.

People go overboard on all manner of things.

The question is: which people?

Or, to put it another way: is it Axelrod or Penn?

If it's Axelrod you might have cause to feel less confident of Senator Obama's prospects. If it's Penn you might have cause to feel less confident of Senator Clinton's prospects.

You tell me.

You are really voting for the person and the person's character and values. Whatever policies they espouse today may or may not be possible to enact when elected, but the person is what you get and are stuck with, regardless. That said, this overly long, contentious, nasty primary should be over by now!

Rallyround/Ellen=concern troll.
Please stop feeding it!

Leroy- You are my new hero!

This person may not be a concern troll, but she seems to me to be looking for validation to support Mrs. Clinton.
My whole family (including our 80 year old mother)resides in Florida. All except two are registered to vote and none would ever pull a lever for Mrs. Clinton. Neither would most of the people I meet when I travel down there to visit. Obama? He's an afterthought.
So, if you are worried about Florida, don't. No Democrat, including Obama, is going to win Florida. Old South Florida in the panhandle will go for McCain, so will the midstate retirement colonies. And the Cuban dominated south is still Jeb Bush country, i.e., no country for Democrats. Give it up. If you live in of of the states that hasn't voted, please, by all means vote Clinton. I'm sure it'll make you feel better.

It's amazing the Senator Empty Suit Obama can write two books and forget he visited Pakistan for three weeks. Obama is a liar and scum.

I am a Clinton supporter and will vote for her in May, but assume that since the elitist, exclusionary caucus system has pretty much guaranteed Obama the nomination, I will be voting for him in the fall.

However, I won't be volunteering - the first time I won't volunteer on a presidential campaign since McGovern.

Though it's not about Obama. It's about the average Obama supporter. I don't think I could stand to be in a room working with such a collection of nasty people.

well, sadly, it will be Obama's campaign dealing with it. I doubt I am the only one so turned off by the viciousness of the obama supporters to be unwilling to work with them in the general although willing to vote for him.

my evidence. Web sites associated with obama and with heavy posting by Obama supporters have lost 40% of their traffic in the last month. There is no such fall off @ Clinton identified blogs or non-aligned blogs. The explanation - the viciousness of the Obama supporters (or should I say Clinton haters since so many Obama supporters are defined more by Clinton hatred than Obama support) has driven out the traffic.

So, yes, you lot are hurting your candidate.

I have to confess that Rallyround's post, and some of the subsequent discussion, made me a little uncomfortable. I am not calling Rallyround a concern troll, but as Genghis pointed out, a common concern troll strategy is to pretend to support a position or a candidate and then recite talking points against it. I may also be overly influenced by my experience in litigation, where a common tactic for gathering information and evoking admissions is to pretend openness to people on the other side, thus encouraging them to open up and spill everything they think, feel and know. The process usually begins with a brief comment that hints at sympathy and is helped along by "prompts" that evoke more information from the other side without making any commitments or giving anything away.

Not surprisingly, this group responded to Rallyround's post with generosity and an outpouring of information and analysis. I think part of what bothers me is that Rallyround did so little to engage with those in the group who responded. People would respond in detail to one of the HRC talking points that Rallyround threw out, and then, instead of engaging them on those points, s/he would simply lob off a different talking point. This could just be a matter of personal style -- obviously, I can't know. But to me, it was an odd discussion for this forum.

I also thought it strange that Rallyround could be unaware of the standard BHO supporters' responses to the standard HRC talking points. I'm pretty sure Rallyround has read and commented on a number of other posts in this forum. Perhaps Rallyround is genuinely a low-information voter who is unfamiliar with the factual and analytical talking points in the debate about the respective candidates' electibility. But the sophistication of RR's investigative approach seemed to belie that.

Of course, it doesn't really matter what Rallyround's purpose is or what his/her purpose is in voting for a candidate for president. Like all of us, s/he should make the decision based on the result s/he wishes to achieve. I'm just expressing my discomfort, that's all.

You know, you are right. That was intemperate, but I think it's a result of the constant Clinton hatred just wearing down my tolerance.

And you know, I may be privileged myself with a secure middle class income with days off and other benefits, but I grew up poor, not working class, but downright poor. I know what it's like to have parents that cannot come to school events because they have to work and have no vacation pay, so taking the night to come see the school play means less income for the whole family.

And the insouciant, shallow and careless disregard for those workers whose hold on their jobs and their homes is so fragile on the part of the people who defend the caucus system is just infuriating. It strips bare the progressive ideal and shows it to pretty empty. After all, if you believe in the worth and dignity of all people, you don't have an electoral system that keeps the working class and poor disenfranchised.

and his comment that is was all about organizing was facile, shallow and showed again, the economically privileged ignorance of what real life is like for working class people and a careless and arrogant disregard for their voting rights, so I was intemperate, you are right.

I should have laid out in clear and simple language what was so offensive about his flip and elitist remark - explained how little he seems to care about working class and poor people, explained clearly how little he values people's right to vote. Instead, I called him a privileged idiot - and really, that does not begin to express who offensive he is.

I should have bookmarked it, followed a link from the front page of TPM to a study on partisanship and blogs. It was DKos who is down 40% since March 8th - the marker from which they measure up and down.

You can quibble about the timeframe and say compare this year to last - whereby you will find DKos up, but if you go by the recent months, they have dipped. I believe and the authors believe that this is hyperpartisanship driving people away.

Now, one reason Clinton supporters are less over-the-top crazy is that they like her for her policy positions, etc. I mean, she is not lovable. She's admirable. She's not someone you will adore, but will admire and respect. She's not charismatic, she respnsible and hard-working. She doesn't have the qualities that make Obama so tempting - even to this died in the wool progressive.

Since our allegiance is less emotional it's easier to usually stay fairly even-keeled, so long as people don't start throwing around their class privilege and showing how little they care about the poor. That always riles me.