Public Policy Institute of California
Obama 49, McCain 40... Clinton 46, McCain 43
What was that about how Obama couldn't win the big states?
Posted on March 27, 2008 10:54 AM
I'm probably missing something, but I don't recall anyone suggesting Obama *couldn't* win California in the general! A Dem would have to do something really special to lose there.
I believe the "big state" issue pertains to the *toss-up* big states - Penn, Ohio, Florida, maybe some others. But perhaps I'm mistaken.
Posted on March 27, 2008 11:13 AM
new jersey can swing and has. it's a sneaky one.
anyone checking out the numbers on the new voters in pa and their pathway to registration?
just curious, seems like a high number and raises some questions. at least for me.
i'm wondering if bloomberg is reconsidering entering this tar pit?
Posted on March 27, 2008 11:35 AM
"I believe the "big state" issue pertains to the *toss-up* big states - Penn, Ohio, Florida, maybe some others. But perhaps I'm mistaken."
Neither Dem will win Florida. I'll guarantee it. Right now.
Penn will go Democrat in the general election. It always flirts with the right, but swings Dem. It hasn't gone Republican in two decades, and, with Democratic registration at its highest in recent memory, that's not likely to change.
Ohio is the real question. However, would Hillary even do better than Obama in Ohio? Although early post-Wright polls may show Hillary doing better, pre-Wright polls are up in the air, and the evidence is that the Wright Effect is temporary.
Posted on March 27, 2008 11:52 AM
- Well wasn't that the Clinton camp's "argument"?
"She can win the big states" , so therefore she is more electable than Obama. And hence the super-delegates should overrule the pledged delegates. Wasn't that the sum of her argument??
To date - Florida doesn't count as Obama didn't campaign there.
So is their argument now, since she won Ohio and likely Penn, that she should be the nominee? I see. Makes a lot of sense to me.
Why have the rest of the states vote then? We could just have Ohio and Penn vote every year, and save the Democratic party millions of dollars.
Posted on March 27, 2008 12:07 PM
Is that guarantee "or your money back"?
I bet it will be closer than you think. There are a lot of unregistered voters there. We will see....
Posted on March 27, 2008 12:12 PM
The Real Truth,
Are you talking about Florida or PA? In Florida, few polls show either Democrat ahead, and it's been trending more and more GOP in the last decade. An old white moderate like McCain will sweep the floor in Florida, I don't care what anyone says.
In PA, a few polls show McCain ahead, but that's only with strong backing from Democratic deserters (from Clinton or Obama's camp, depending on who the opponent is). By the general election, enough of these folks will come back into the party fold to undo McCain in PA. PA has been trending democrat for years. Although PA is almost as old as Florida, it still has enough left-leaning indies and blue collar dems to win it for the Dems.
Posted on March 27, 2008 12:20 PM
I agree with your Penn argument - McCain will not win there - as well as the fact that many of these hard-core Clinton supporters will support Obama in the general. The contrast is so stark, so vivid, between Obama and McCain, that most will go to Obama. Remember, many people still haven't heard Obama's message or heard him speak. I doubt this wright thing will stick either - even in the fall when faux news replays it endlessly and foams at the mouth doing it. When I recently explained it to a friend, they asked "who cares what his pastor has said in the past? I want to know what Obama says today." The only people who will be swayed are ones that weren't going to vote for him anyway. It was odd though to see huckabee defending wright. Religion is thicker than politics? Guess so.
Posted on March 27, 2008 12:33 PM
defector polls of yesterday suggest a loss for the dems. in fact, it could be a stampede as mccain begins to relax in a comfort zone that no longer has to pander the the extreme right, thus revealing his liberal tendencies.
other than the war, which obama and clinton once they're in office can't exactly cut and run from, there's not a lot of enormous differences . less even if you count mccain's maverick boycott of bush tax cuts.
also, the only real time campaign expenditures were Obama's who deluged florida with cable ads running up to and through the primary. you should check your facts better.
if he were discounting the primacy of this so called straw primary, i doubt he would have been the only one to plunk down the bucks. he surely wanted to win the beuaty contest but didn't. apparently he wants it both ways and DUH, is getting it.
the democrats cannot raise a candidate who disavows two states. they must contribute their
preference and obama or clinton have to bloody swallow it.
Posted on March 27, 2008 1:06 PM
Winning CA has been one of the 'big states' Hillary has been touting as the reason she should be given the primary. Obama will be showing this to the supers you can bet real money on that.
Bloomberg introduced Obama today. I don't know if he outright endorsed him because the stations didn't turn on the sound till Obama hit the stage. I don't think he'll run against Obama.
Posted on March 27, 2008 1:50 PM
@the real truth:
RE: "Well wasn't that the Clinton camp's "argument"? "She can win the big states" , so therefore she is more electable than Obama. And hence the super-delegates should overrule the pledged delegates. Wasn't that the sum of her argument??"
Then you misunderstood the argument. "She can win the big states," so to speak, refers to states that are actually in play, this year, in the general election. No one is arguing that Hillary can win Texas or that Obama could lose California.
RE: "To date - Florida doesn't count as Obama didn't campaign there."
Neither did she, and she still kicked his ass.
RE: "Why have the rest of the states vote then? We could just have Ohio and Penn vote every year, and save the Democratic party millions of dollars."
If you are referring to the nomination process, a sack of squirrels could do a better job of organizing something sensible.
If you mean in the general, here's the drill: unless something really, really dramatic happens, only the toss-up states matter, and the bigger ones count more than the smaller ones. [and one more time, California is NOT a toss-up state!]
Anyway, isn't it about time Obama supporters switch gears and start arguing that Puerto Rico's primary votes / delegates shouldn't count? ;-)
Posted on March 27, 2008 2:08 PM
You are really living on another planet. Apparently, I'm not the only one who "misunderstood" the big state argument.
Is that kinda like the whole "misspoke" on Bosnia deal?
Anyway, it boils down to winning Ohio. She won Ohio, and is trying to twist the arms of supers not to evict her from the race. Not gonna happen. Obama can change the electoral map, thereby benefitting down-ticket Dems. Many more states will be in play with Obama headlining and the Dems will get a much larger majority in Congress.
"Neither did she, and she still kicked his ass. "
- Good one. That was funny. I bet the Clintons would love to have had a name-recognition contest for all the states. Interestingly enough, Hillary is on record as saying that Michigan and Florida should NOT count, and now, when she needs them, they suddenly should be counted. Kinda like her whole "dodging sniper fire" statement. What wouldn't she say or do to be "elected" president?
"only the toss-up states matter"
- Let me refute your argument again by quoting from the same link:
"Obama puts in play a panoply of states where Clinton would have a much tougher time. Obama could potentially win Virginia (13 electoral votes), Missouri (11 electoral votes) and even Mississippi (whose population is 40% African American -- 6 electoral votes). He would be considerably more competitive than Clinton in other battleground states like Colorado (9 electoral votes), Iowa (7 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Minnesota (10 electoral votes) and Michigan (17 electoral votes). The same goes for New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) -- a state where McCain will work hard to woo independents among whom Obama did much better than Clinton in this year's primary.
Even in states where Clinton could make a case for some advantages relative to Obama, these "advantages" are far from certain. Take Florida where she might assert an advantage among Latinos. Florida also has up to 500,000 newly enfranchised ex-felons -- many of whom are African American. The problem with these new voters is mobilization, not persuasion. Getting them registered and voting will be hard. Obama would obviously turn out many more African American mobilizable voters than Clinton. And when it comes to Latino voters, Obama's clear record on immigration contrasts well with McCain who has thrown Latino immigration reform aspirations under the bus in order to pander to his party's right wing.
Obama has the one quality that allows him to simultaneously motivate mobilizable base voters and appeal to persuadable independents -- the ability to inspire. This quality allows him to broaden the appeal of his candidacy to swing voters. At the same time it allows him to expand the electorate with new young and African American voters who otherwise simply wouldn't vote. Clinton is the anti-inspiration candidate. She will have a much harder time both expanding the electorate and appealing to swing voters. Obama's ability to inspire -- by itself -- makes him a much stronger general election candidate. "
I would add that North and South Carolina may be in play as well. Looks like there is no doubt left for the supers. Check and mate.
Looks like the only question now is: Can Clinton concede with any semblance of grace? I, for one, doubt it.
Posted on March 27, 2008 3:31 PM
Re: the_real_truth and Ciccina;
Have you guys checked out fivethirtyeight.com? I love that site.
I agree that Florida is going to be tough for either of the dems to win (Hillary looks like she has a small chance of it right now). I had thought that Penn would be very close, but if you are right about the trend toward dems, that makes Obama look better (he doesn't poll as well as Clinton right now).
On the other hand, I think the argument about Obama winning Missouri or Mississippi is looking weaker right now.
But he has a real advantage in the North West. Hillary is consistently a little behind McCain in Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and a few Midwest/Great Lake states also are less favorable to her. I grew up in the Southern Oregon media market myself (we lived across the border in N. California), and I agree that the relentlessly negative coverage of the Clintons during the 90's has affected voters in the West. They aren't inclined to trust people who have been around NY or DC; Hawaii and Chicago are much more familiar. And white folks from those states don't have the same negative view of blacks that still persists in the East (north and south).
I do think Hillary will make back some ground and probably could win OR and WA if she made it to the general election, especially after throwing some mud on McCain (who is very much liked in the West). Obama will win NJ and MA too, despite a few contrary polls. But Obama is starting from a stronger position for the general election, when it gets down to electoral votes and states in play.
Posted on March 27, 2008 4:28 PM
@ the real truth,
All I can say is - be a little more skeptical.
The HuffPo piece is utter trash. All this "could potentially"? Meaningless. Obama "could potentially" flip Mississippi? He couldn't even win the primary. Sure, he "could potentially" win Colorado; he also "could potentially" get hit by a truck.
And as for Bosnia - don't make me laugh. At least she *went* there, saw the conditions, met with military, civil society and ordinary people.
Where was Obama? Teaching law class in Chicago? Yeah, that's pretty rough. You gain some real foreign policy insight doing that. Or was he already in the state house? I hear you can learn a lot about the Balkans there. Yep. You can get a lot of foreign policy experience hanging out in Springfield.
Posted on March 27, 2008 8:06 PM
So basically, with your last post, you just refuted all your previous arguments. Clinton's whole campaign is based on the "could potentially" argument, as in she "could potentially" win Florida and Ohio. She has NOTHING else but the "could potentially" argument. What a joke.
Umm, Obama *did* win the primary in Mississippi. I know you Clintonistas take after your candidate in living in a fantasy land, but at least get your facts straight.
So by your ludicrous argument, shaking hands with foreign "people" is foreign policy experience - I see. So Laura Bush is just as qualified apparently. I've seen her shake a lot of foreign hands. She'll be a great president too. Proximity to a president doesn't mean anything - otherwise Monica should run too. I know, Laura Bush and Monica together! Bush/Lewinsky '08! Now there's an unbeatable ticket.
The teller of the Tall Tale of Tuzla is no more qualified in foreign affairs than a well-traveled businessman. She is a political phony that needs to lie to bolster her "experience". So sad. Don't worry Clintonista, it will all be over soon.
Posted on March 28, 2008 9:17 AM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR