As it turns out, OH and TX Dems are equally enthusiastic about both candidates

[LadyVT]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/02/satisfying_the_democratic_elec_1.html

Fascinating stuff:

"More than seven in 10 likely voters in the Ohio and Texas Democratic primaries said they'd be satisfied with each of the remaining candidates as the party's nominee, according to new Washington Post-ABC News state polls.

"About four in 10 would be "very" satisfied with Hillary Clinton in each state, and about the same proportions expressed that level of satisfaction with Barack Obama.

"The findings mirror recent exit poll results showing widespread satisfaction among the Democratic electorate with both candidates, though, naturally, Clinton and Obama each do slightly better than the other in states they win."

-snip-

"Independents in both states are less likely to say they would be "very satisfied" with Clinton than with Obama as the Democratic standard-bearer. In Ohio, 43 percent of independents would be very satisfied with Obama; 31 percent would be that happy with Clinton. In Texas, the satisfaction gap among independents was 15 percent."

***************
Good stuff in there about women's preferences, as well.
It does look like the Independents and Republicans are responsible for Obama's front-runner position so far.

[Colobo]

1. Obama has more appeal than Clinton overall. Good.

[LadyVT]

3. Not amongst Democrats.

[scheming daemons]

7. So if it is equal among Democrats.... our best bet is to go with the

candidate that is better among NON-Democrats.


The goal is to get the most votes. If they each get the same amoung of Dem votes.... the tipping point is who does better among Indies and disaffected Repugs - because they'll decide the election.

[LadyVT]

8. There are more than enough Democrats to elect the President this year

[scheming daemons]

10. So why not win by the largest margin possible?

...

[stahbrett]

11. what percentage of the electorate is registered as Democrat? (eom)

[TheDebbieDee]

9. Yes, but will you be able to count on Indies and disaffected

repukes (I think of them as unrepentant slimeballs trying to escape from their party) coming out to vote for your candidate in November?

[scheming daemons]

14. More than would vote for yours... and that's the whole point....

I don't know how many indies and repukes would vote for Obama... but whatever number it is, it is larger than the number of indies and repukes that would vote for Hillary.

Since they'd get the same number of Dem voters (according to the OP), then all that matters for us is which of our candidates will get more indie and repuke votes.

That's clearly Obama.


Case closed. He's more electable.

[texas_indy]

13. You hit the nail on the head! Excellent point which many can't/won't see. (nt)

[Colobo]

2. Dupe!

[angie_love]

4. good stuff, looks like we will have party unity after all. I love democrats

we don't take things personally and in the end we come together for the greater good!

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

6. Yup,

All of this "I won't vote for him/her in November" stuff on DU is rare in the real world.

[scheming daemons]

5. So they have EQUAL appeal among Democrats....

...but Obama has greater appeal among Independents.


That's all we need to know about who has the better shot in November.

[robbedvoter]

12. because you ASSUME the indies will stay put and the Dems are tied down

[scheming daemons]

15. The OP... a Clinton supporter... posted an article saying the Dems are tied down...

...so the only question is:

Who gets more indies... Obama or Clinton?

and

Who gets more disaffected repukes... Obama or Clinton?



The answer to both questions... is clearly Obama.


You ask "would the indies stay put" for Obama? The REAL question is "would MORE indies stay put for Obama than for Clinton?"

Answer THAT question, and you have the answer to who should be our nominee.