Obama's general elections strategy

[cali]

Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:10:37 PM PST
My good friend and partner Jerome Armstrong makes a tired "electability" argument over at his joint.

I have heard Clinton's many times, and its been played out in the Democratic nomination battle. She'll take an unprecedented high level of women and Latino majorities into winning all (or nearly all) the states that John Kerry (and/or Al Gore) won, and add in: Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Florida. Maybe there are some other states, but if we just add those 42 electoral votes to the Democratic column, Clinton would win.

I really only have a single issue: winning. I believe that if more Democrats win, a more progressive agenda will be enacted, and we can make democratic-stronghold challenges in primaries with more progressive candidates (Donna Edwards is gonna beat Wynn, for example).

But what is Barack Obama's winning coalition of states that puts him over 270 electoral votes?

Jerome is too smart to not know the answer. It's easy:

Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, Arkansas, Virginia, Ohio, and Nevada.

That's 76 electoral votes, already past the 42 sure-things that Jerome thinks Hillary gets (and really, Florida?). So if nothing else changed from 2004, that would be a 328-210 Obama victory. Beyond that, Obama will be competitive elsewhere. What, does Jerome really think that Latinos will choose McCain over Obama after 10 months of Republican immigrant bashing in the news (which will happen, whether McCain joins in or not), or that women will sit November out?

McCain is hated in Alaska for his position on ANWAR. Obama is also against such drilling, of course, but they expect that out of a Democrat. A Republican who opposes it is a traitor. Alaska would be my sleeper call for 2008. Arizona would be in play. Montana could be in play. Kentucky could be in play. West Virginia could be in play. Florida might be in play. And if nothing else, Obama would help close the margin in a lot of Red states, forcing cash-strapped Republicans to play defense across something closer to a 50-state strategy than the inevitable 18-state strategy we'll see out of Clinton. Heck, you're seeing it in this primary, with Obama running in every state, while Clinton brags about sitting out the various states (in an attempt to minimize his victories in places like Louisiana and Washington). She increases the battlefield over 2004, no doubt, but not as wide as Obama does through sheer appeal to independents and even some Republicans.

<snip>
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/11/115437/994/64/454529

[LLee]

1. super delegates

If the super delegates do not vote the will of the people will the democrats win? We have an energized youth trusting the process, we have been through one decade of dishonest and untrustworthy elections... and if the DNC dare disenfranchise us also, many will not vote.
If the DNC unfairly crams Hillary down our throats can Obama switch to Independent?

[napi21]

2. I can only tell you, SOMEBODY better keep the youth vote energized!

I'm old, and there have been soooo many elections where we've all been told "the YOUTH VOTE" will this this for him! Guess what? Sprin turns to summer, the youth lose interest and are far more interested in many other things, and by November, they have "other things" to do! Of course we lose the election AGAIN! I don't really care which Dem candidate wins in November, as long as it's not another Pub!

[rug]

3. So, you would vote for Obama as an independent rather than the Democratic nominee?