Clinton 58, Obama 31
Interestingly, in this same poll....Obama loses to McCain by similar numbers....58% to 33%.
Posted on May 12, 2008 10:54 AM
I'd like a list of the states Obama supporters believe He'll pick up given the democratic and swing states he won't or probably won't carry.
Posted on May 12, 2008 11:15 AM
Hmmm... I just read that Obama "declined" to show up for the Democratic state dinner last Friday night, and his local surrogate was booed.
Apparently, today Obama is "stopping by" along with a stop in West Virginia on his way to campaign in Florida. And since the Florida delegate issue is still unresolved, why is he campaigning against McCain there? Is Obama so confident that he believes all Florida Democrats will vote for him anyway? There is a reason, Florida is called a "swing" state.
I get that Obama figures to lose both West Virginia and Kentucky, but why be so cavalier in writing them off? Jesse Jackson had no chance of winning yet in 1988 he campaigned vigorously in both states "to get out his message." What message is Obama sending?
Posted on May 12, 2008 11:18 AM
Swing states Obama is supposed to pick up over Hillary include: Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Colorado, and Iowa.
Ones that lean McCain but are very ideal battle grounds (5% difference) are old republican states like Kansas, Alaska, Montana, Virgina, New Hampshire, Nebraska.
I'll give Hillary has an "easier" job of dealing with fewer "big states" to win it but who cares frankly. lol.
Posted on May 12, 2008 11:34 AM
He's sending the message that Oregon matters more than West Virgina. He plans to capture more of the vote there to offset the vote in West Virgina. Its all a chess game and who cares what Jesse Jackson did.
Posted on May 12, 2008 11:36 AM
Washington is NOT a swing state by any measure. It is Democratic and will vote Democratic. Of course Obama will win Washington... all 11 electoral votes.
That leaves Oregon (7), New Mexico (5), Colorado (8) and Iowa (7) for a total of 27.... to offset losses to McCain in Ohio (21) and Florida (25).
As for "battleground" states... You are joking, right? Maybe New Hampshire... but with only 4 EV the category of battleground is humorous. As well as the red states of Kansas (6), Alaska (3), Montana (3), and Nebraska (5). Even Clinton did not win these latter states when he trounced Dole in 1996.
P.S. Typical Obama supporter response... dismiss Jesse Jackson as the first authentic "black" candidate who with his Rainbow Coalition was truly trying to bring people together. Two decades ago Jackson came in second to Dukakis. He won 13 states, even Michigan. A NYT journalist named 1988 as the "Year of Jackson."
Such actions and attitudes "against" Jackson and the voters of WV and Kentucky reveal that Obama is all talk and no walk.
Posted on May 12, 2008 12:14 PM
Now, now, boys. Don't compare Obama's performance to Jesse Jackson's - that would be racist.
Just kidding. I know that rule only applies if you last name is Clinton.
Posted on May 12, 2008 12:23 PM
Okay Hillary IS losing Washington State in recent polling. I'm only citing Rasmussen's latest poll of the state.
Your logic is hounded in the legacy of Jessie Jackson and Clinton's inroads to states for this election. The country has changed in 24-16 years and Obama can naturally make inroads to states in his own creative way (I give that Hillary can as well). Just because he's black doesn't mean that he'll win or reflect Jessie Jackson's accomplishments OR failures. So discounting states like Alaska, Montana, Kansas, ect. as unviable when Rasmussen and SurveyUSA say they are, is... well... dumb...
Rasmussen just put Virgina and North Carolina in play as swing states too in their polling today.
I'd appreciate not to be categorized into anything typical. I make arguments based on that Obama made much of his life for himself and not because of Jessie Jackson. I give Jessie Jackson credit where its due but honestly, this is apples and oranges to previous election cycles for democrats.
Posted on May 12, 2008 12:28 PM
You should add WI, NC, Virginia and Kansas to your list.
Posted on May 12, 2008 12:50 PM
Washington already voted for Obama a long time ago. So why are we discussing Hillary? I thought you were talking about swing states for Obama? Because swing states for Hillary and McCain would be Arkansas, West Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Missouri... those that come immediately to mind.
I am not so dumb... the demographics in Alaska, Montana, Iowa, etc have changed not so much since the last couple of presidential elections. If they did not vote for Clinton in 1996 than it is unlikely they will vote for a liberal Democrat in 2008.
I am not talking about people NOT voting for Obama or Jackson because of their race, but rather walking the talk of bringing people together, whether one gets the votes or not. Obama apparently lacks courage of his so-stated convictions that he will not campaign in states where he will get very little of the white vote. If he is going to be President of the U.S. he has to at least appear like he is bringing people together... as he has stated he can do.
And ignoring the path that Jackson helped establish for black candidates like Obama is like ignoring the Civil Rights Movement.... both from which Obama is benefitting today.
Posted on May 12, 2008 1:30 PM
In regards to carrying various states, I think I end up at the same place as Nickberry.
There is no reason to think that Clinton would do any worse than Kerry in 2004 or Gore in 2000. Kerry won Oregon and Washington.
There is no flaw attributed to Clinton that wasn't part of the arsenal hurled at Gore and/or Kerry. Except one, that is.
Oh, what the hell, I'll just name them all: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA, WV and WI. That got him 252 electoral votes (18 short) (please correct my math if I'm getting any of this wrong).
Clinton could lose NH (-5) and pick up FL (27) to get past the 270 needed to win the general. Or she could lose NH and FL but win Ohio (20) plus 1 of the following: AR (6) (home state advantage), NV (5) or NM (5) (Latino vote). In fact, its possible she could win FL, OH, AR, NV *and* NM for a total of 311 EVs - a landslide compared to previous cycles.
Assuming Obama could win the Kerry "base" including PA (21), which is dicey, minus NH (-5), he too would have 252 votes. We know FL and OH are both risky for him, but without carrying FL or OH + 1, he would need to win NM (5), NV (5), IA (7) plus another 6 EVs... KS (6)? CO (9)? And if Obama lost PA - a real possibility - he'd have to knit together some kind of miracle to pull off a victory.
As for Clinton losing WA - with all those enviros up there? Nonsense. Kansas (6) - maybe some home state advantage for Obama. NC and VA? No. Obama just doesn't have enough cross-party appeal to pull off that kind of miracle.
I thought everyone had gotten the point that snapshot head-to-head polling in selected states is not in any way a reliable predictor of votes five months from now. They are basically chew toys for people who crave a constant stream of data (us). No more, no less.
But, you know, who cares.
Posted on May 12, 2008 1:34 PM
Nickberry wrote: "Obama apparently lacks courage of his so-stated convictions"...
Obama is a profile of non-conviction. His latest statement on choice could not have been more waffley. [Sorry, if you're interested in seeing just how waffley he is, the link for this goes to my blog - tacky, I know. But its better than retyping it all here. http://thelurkingcanary.blogspot.com].
Okay, no more from me.
Posted on May 12, 2008 1:39 PM
I'm sorry I was also commenting to Tybo's comment of a list of states Obama does better than Hillary.
Despite my name is I am also a Washingtonian (for 24 years). Westerner democrats have a more unfavorable opinion of Clinton than you may think. Her brand of politics does not mesh well with the area. Its saddening that she has put the state in the realm of a toss-up state. Independents vehemently are opposed to her just check this website on the McCain vs. Clinton poll.
I don't really know where you are getting your analysis Ciccina or Nickberry when it comes to in-play states. This is a polling website. Yes the past is valuable to show where the potential victors are but you can go back 30 years and find that politics were a North/South divide or that Washington and Oregon used to be Republican strongholds. My point is that the playing field has drastically changed not having an incumbent president in office, during a recession, in a war. We can only use the past so much to the point were we are going to find out that this WON'T JUST be a Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania scenario. And rightly so the polls are supporting this analysis.
Posted on May 12, 2008 2:43 PM
"I'm sorry I was also commenting to Tybo's comment of a list of states Obama does better than Hillary"
except I didn't mention CLinton. I wanted to know which states Barry would carry in exchange for the states he's surrendered to the GOP (florida,ohio, probably pa.,maybe michigan plus west virginia, and kentucky)
in Alaska, he got a total of 300 votes.
Posted on May 12, 2008 3:02 PM
Oh, Andrew, my dear. My "analysis of in-play states" is based on performance during the last two presidentials. You can find this info a lot of places. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/. Or http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/dec/dec31.html.
The only western states that Democrats need to be concerned with are WA, OR, CA and NV. The rest are irrelevant.
Posted on May 12, 2008 4:39 PM
Well... I too live in Washington State... and it has not been a Republican stronghold since before FDR. We did have a popular GOP Governor in recent times... Dan Evans... but he was a very progressive Republican. And the state legislature has mostly been Democrat-led (both houses or split).
Washingtonians do not have such an unfavorable view of Clinton. Maybe you are really only speaking for the liberals in the population center of Seattle.
Posted on May 13, 2008 10:38 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