Reply #78: I think the problem is

[woolldog]

that you're looking at the electoral map for Hillary and Obama as the same. It's not. I think they both have a good chance. It's just that the electoral math and states in play look different

Hillary wins:

CA, WA, NM, MN, IL, MI, OH, PA, NJ, NY, ME, DC, CT, RI, VT, MD, and AK. That's only 262 electoral votes to McCain's 276. (And I'm not sure she'd win NM)

The battleground would be Florida. She is behind in Florida. This would be just like 2000 and 2004 another try by the democrats to pull off a 50+1 strategy.

I have Obama winning:

All the states HRC wins except Ohio and Arkansas. BUT He gets Wisonsin, NV, CO, OR, MO, NH, VA, IA and possibly KS. (I don't think she gets any of those except possible MO. That's not taking into account that Obama might pick McCain's pocket in the south and get one state.) That's 308 electoral votes to McCain's 230.

Play with this map and see for yourself. If he loses PA the count goes down to Obama 287 -- McCain 251

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/politics101/politics101_ecmap.html

So the choice for Democrats is to try to compete on the same old electoral map, with Ohio and FL as the battleground states. Or to take a chance and play a completely different strategy, with the potential for a greater win, but an admittedly riskier strategy.

I think the latter strategy has a better chance of growing the party and turning the democratic party into a majority party.