WP, pg1: Downside of Obama Strategy: Losses in Big States Spur General-Election Fears

[DeepModem Mom]

Downside of Obama Strategy
Losses in Big States Spur General-Election Fears
By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 8, 2008; A01

Democrats in Wyoming will hold caucuses today and -- following what is now a familiar pattern -- are expected to give Sen. Barack Obama the majority of their 12 pledged delegates. The Illinois Democrat's strength in a Republican state that has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964 is the latest example of an ingenious strategy that neatly addresses the advantage Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) enjoys in Democratic strongholds where she and her husband have long-standing ties.

But Obama's losses Tuesday in Texas and Ohio -- coupled with his Feb. 5 defeats in California, New York and New Jersey -- have not only shown the strategy's downside. They have also given supporters of Clinton an opening for an argument that winning over affluent, educated white voters in small Democratic enclaves, such as Boise, Idaho, and Salt Lake City, and running up the score with African Americans in the Republican South exaggerate his strengths in states that will not vote Democratic in the fall.

If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee but cannot win support from working-class whites and Hispanics, they argue, then Democrats will not retake the White House in November. "If you can't win in the Southwest, if you don't win Ohio, if you don't win Pennsylvania, you've got problems in November," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a Clinton supporter.

Even some Obama advisers see a real problem. "Ultimately, all that matters is how the nominee stacks up against John McCain," said one adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity, referring to the senator from Arizona and presumptive GOP nominee. "Right now, Barack is not connecting with the children of the Reagan Democrats. That's a real concern."

"It's now a battle between the base and the new young Democrats and Democrats who are more energized than they've been in the past," agreed Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), an Obama supporter. "I don't know how that's going to play out."...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703318_pf.html

[pbca]

1. Obama won Texas n/t

[Lucinda]

4. Really? What's the final caucus vote?

[City Lights]

13. Yes, what's the final caucus vote, and why is it listed as a win for her if the

numbers are still being tallied?

[Lucinda]

24. Because she won the primary. The caucus is another thing entirely.

[City Lights]

45. Of course we know that, but the media rarely makes that distinction.

Most people have no idea that the final tallies have not been completed in Texas. They've already chalked Texas up as a win for Clinton.

It's dishonest reporting, and I'm sick of hearing her or her spokespeople whine about how the media is against her.

edited for clarity

[rodeodance]

55. 3: 1 for Clinton---common knowledge across America.

[Lucinda]

60. What was the final caucus count? I haven't seen it anywhere.

[spooky3]

70. In TX, you can't vote in the caucus unless you voted in the primary.

The primary votes have been entirely tallied and Clinton won them by a small margin.

Caucus voters therefore are a non-random subgroup of primary voters, and a less representative sample of the TX population of voters than are primary voters.

That's why it is reasonable for the media to say what they have been saying. It's not dishonest at all.

[Zynx]

8. Unfortunately for you a primary is closer to reflecting general election realities than a caucus.

[joshcryer]

10. This is one reason why red states are caucuses, the party has dismissed them from the getgo.

[Ravy]

16. States get to choose themselves how they hold their elections. nt

[Zynx]

17. Tennessee, Oklahoma, Utah, Arizona, Texas, etc all have primaries

[amborin]

22. most of those will be red in the GE

[ElsewheresDaughter]

23. keyword being "open" primary or caucus and Obama wins only OPEN ones with Rethuglican votes

[DearAbby]

27. Caucus here in Colorado was Closed....Obama blew it out

I forgot.....Clinton News-Breaking...only caucus that counts is the only one she won....got cha!

[paulk]

87. what was the final tally for CO - 68 - 31 - or something like that?

do you really, honestly think that is an accurate reflection of Obama's support here in Colorado? That Democrats here prefer Obama over Hillary by a more than two to one margin? This in a state that chose Ken Salazar over Mike Miles by a three to one margin - in the 2004 primary? After caucus - I might add - WON by Miles?

That's what this article is talking about - Obama's been racking up delegates in caucus states - because of the nature of caucuses -that are not necessarily an accurate portrayal of the real situation.



ed for sp.

[roseBudd]

62. Ohio was an open primary & Hillary won in the heavy GOP exurb counties that went for Bush

with the highest margin. But those were those Rush voters who didn't have to worry about casting a primary vote because their nominee had an insurmountable lead that Huckabee couldn't surmount.

[skooooo]

56. You mean like Washington State? Which is a BLUE state?

Your theory doesn't hold water.

[anamandujano]

68. I didn't realize that. Thanks.

They should be dismissed at the convention also, i.e. not weigh heavily.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

91. Red states like Minnesota?

[DeepModem Mom]

28. Clinton won the primary vote in Texas, and primary v. caucus...

is one of the points of the article.

[rodeodance]

54. OH gee--newspapers across America--big headlines say Clinton 3:1.

[THUNDER HANDS]

2. be afraid....be afraid

it's the only card Team Hillary has. It's absurd.

Obama is not the one starting the election with 48% negatives, she is.

If anyone is going to struggle to win enough states, it's her.

[msongs]

14. your post is a hoot - you're the one with the pic of obama as something to fear. nt

[democrattotheend]

21. I disagree. It is a concern

I am an Obama supporter but I don't want him to get the nomination if he can't win the general. I'd rather him get another chance in 4 or 8 years than go down now because people don't think he's ready.

The Clinton campaign's claims that she is more electable because she won California, New York, and Massachusetts are ridiculous. Obama will easily carry those states if he is the nominee. But his performance in Ohio is a little worrisome...if he can't connect with the blue-collar Reagan Dems, he won't carry it in the general.

Pennsylvania will be the real test. If he can get through what's likely to be 6 weeks of attacks from the Clinton campaign, deal with some rougher press, and make inroads with blue-collar workers in PA, I'll be very confident in his ability to get the nomination and win the general. But if he loses PA big, I think the superdelegates need to ask the questions posed in this article, even if he has more delegates. A Clinton/Obama ticket is probably the best bet if that happens.

But please don't think I am giving up. I grew up in South Jersey, outside Philadelphia, and I am planning on going home as many weekends as I can and doing everything I can to help him win Pennsylvania.

[indimuse]

40. angry?

..

[JoFerret]

53. That's a horrible pic of Obama

...and he's a good looking guy.

[anamandujano]

69. It's a pretty big card.

[AX10]

3. Kick

[40ozDonkey]

5. What?

Yes, however will Obama carry states that are blue as hell and will be again in November? Oh, the humanity!

[Hepburn]

6. Sorry, but....

...I have a real problem with even maybe considering an article as credible when it states a falsehood such as Obama lost Texas.

Have you considered that maybe posting a article this divorced from the facts not only reflects badly on you, but on Hillary as well?

Just a thought....

[DeepModem Mom]

15. I am maybe the only one here who posts articles without an agenda.

Whether I support Clinton or Obama, I think it's valuable to know that this article appeared on page one of the WP, and is among the most e-mailed today.

For the record, I support Obama. I was the proposer of the DU Obama group, I voted for him in my primary, I am a maxed-out contributor to his campaign. I don't hate Hillary. Some among my nearest and dearest support her. I wish her, and her supporters, well.

Hillary won the popular vote in Texas. Popular vote v. caucus is one of the points the article is making.

[ruggerson]

33. I think you should take a long walk and let DeepModemMom

continue her valuable contributions to this forum (which she does in a non partisan manner) unbadgered by your tripe.

[DearAbby]

7. Jesus, you would think Obama lost some of these states by HUGE MARGINS

what is wrong with these people?

[Zynx]

9. He lost California, New Jersey, and Ohio by pretty big margins.

[DearAbby]

20. So you are telling me,

those democrats who voted for Hillary will not vote for Obama? Most of these states are blue, had been in the past. All those Democrats who voted for Hillary going to vote for McCain???

Are you sitting there telling me this?

[gaspee]

30. They may stay home

and that's the real danger.

[DearAbby]

35. Why would they stay home

these fine Democrats? What would be the reason, prey tell?

[gaspee]

39. And just what

Are you implying?

[DearAbby]

48. Not implying anything...just wondering

what reason do you believe these people, who came out in record breaking numbers, will sit at home in November.

[gaspee]

51. Why do all the Obama people

insist they will not vote for Clinton? Are you implying that the Clinton people will vote for Obama, just not vice-versa? Interesting.

[DearAbby]

58. Excuse me....where did you read

any of that in any of my posts in this thread? Take a look in the real world. People are pretty feckin upset with how things are going in this country. Majority of the people, some Republicans included are sick of the NEOCONS as we are.

I believe that this election will not be the norm. State after state we hear reports of RECORD BREAKING NUMBERS of Democrats coming out to vote. I just cant believe that most of these people will sit at home come November, because Hillary or Obama was not chosen the nominee.

The real world isn't like GD-P.

[gaspee]

89. It's called inferring

from your implications. You implied in your post and I inferred.

[DearAbby]

97. I hadn't implied anything...maybe you need to take a good look inside.

I dont like it when people try to put words in my mouth. That is why I asked the questions, so I know exactly what you meant.

[roseBudd]

81. I was fine with either until she went negative simply because she was losing

[roseBudd]

64. The stay home or defect to McCain insinuation is based on Democratic white racism, doncha know

But I thought white racists are republican. I'm confused.

Plus John McCain clearly understands the economy so staying home or crossing to McCain makes perfect sense

[gaspee]

88. That's what I inferred

From her post. Just wanted to see if she'd admit it.

[newfie4]

59. some will

Polls that have been posted here show 20-25% of current Hillary backers flipping to McCain should Obama get the nomination. Many will stay home as well. That's bad news for Obama.

[DearAbby]

61. LOL!

Poll these people MONTHS away from the General Election in the most heated battle of the campaigns. You actually believe these people will vote McCain, just because Hillary didn't get the nod?

Could it be, because Hillary and McCain political views are so similar? Come on..people who would even contemplate that shit isn't a democrat in the first place.

[roseBudd]

65. And they flip to McCain because he's got great economy bona fides or is it becuse they love 100 year

war. Please explain, I am confused.

[anamandujano]

74. Talk to Obama and his wife about that. They started the "my voters will not go to her" meme.

[roseBudd]

75. If you mean new to the political process young voters, yes I can see them losing interest

But I still want to know what economically anxious white blue collar voters might see in McCain. He didn't lie in Michigan like Romney did. He says he has Greenspan's book but we aren't sure if he read it. He promises to keep tax cuts skewed towards the wealthy. He sings Bomb Bomb Iran and may have a problem with his temper. What's to like?

[democrattotheend]

Sizeable, but not a landslide

Clinton lost other swing states, like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Virginia, and Colorado by much bigger margins. If we are looking at primary margins as gauges of electability, shouldn't we be concerned about Clinton's viability in those states?

And if we are going to say that losing by 10 points in a blue state like California means he won't carry California in the general, shouldn't we be concerned about Clinton's ability to carry Maryland and Vermont, where she lost by over 20 points?

[sandnsea]

29. He won the cities, where we always win

He represents the party, not Hillary.

[democrattotheend]

37. Not as much as she lost Wisconsin, Maryland, and Virginia by

All primary states, btw, not caucuses.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

100. Less than 10% in CA now.

The counting went on after Super Tuesday.

[amborin]

11. big problems for Obama in the GE

can he win in the south in the GE? highly doubtful

can he win Ohio? VERY unlikely, since he even lost big in the primary, and no one who loses the Ohio primary has been able to win the presidency in the GE

he's lost the primaries in major, crucial Dem states....California, NY, NJ, Mass, etc......

as the article says, his primary wins in red states mean little, since those states are rock solid, overwhelmingly RED states in the GE

some argue, well, even though Obama lost in crucial Dem states in the primary, he'll carry them in the GE....However...that is not a certainty.....

[Vinca]

12. I'm afraid I can't understand this "big state" logic.

If Hillary has won a "blue" state, is it really likely another Democrat wouldn't win it in the general election? Who decides the "big" states? I thought Virginia was a pretty significant win. There are lots of significant wins. What Obama brings to the table is the chance of actually turning a red state blue, something Hillary hasn't got a prayer of doing. This entire argument - and apparently it's what Hillary is banking on - makes no sense whatsoever. Democrats will vote for Democrats (except for Hillary, of course, who prefers McCain) by and large. They aren't suddenly going to decide they love the notion of 100 years of war and more Republican control over this disastrous economy.

[thoughtcrime1984]

18. Exactly, this big state fear is unfounded

Obama vs. McCain and Obama vs. Clinton is obviously apples and oranges, whether we're talking big states or small states.

[amborin]

42. not true

Ohio will go red if Obama is the nominee

Texas also

just to name two

[Vinca]

43. And you actually think they'll go blue with Hillary? You poor thing. nt

[anamandujano]

72. Add Florida, even though at this point their vote is not being counted, AGAIN!

[amborin]

19. turning a red state blue?

which red state?

most of Obama's red state primary wins are due to a small group of dems voting for him

but those dems are a minority in an overwhelmingly red electorate

a real likelihood is not that Obama can turn a red state blue, but that he'll turn a purple, or even a blue, state red

and then there's Ohio.....no one, dem or rep, has lost the Ohio primary and then won the GE

[Vinca]

32. Read your history books re the last line. FDR and JFK come to mind.

The talking point from the Clinton campaign is "no president in recent history." Do you think the Republicans in the purple states are going to vote for Hillary? Time for a reality check.

[amborin]

44. JFK was not on the ballot in the Ohio primary, so not a good example

[democrattotheend]

34. I agree about the blue states. But I am a little worried about Ohio

The blue state logic is ridiculous. I don't believe losing the California primary by 10 points means Obama won't carry it in the general, just as I don't believe losing Maryland by 23 points means Clinton won't win Maryland in the general.

Ohio is a little more disturbing to me...she won the blue collar workers whom I am not sure we can count on in November. But I am not sure she can count on them either. These people are swing voters, and white voters making less than $50,000 actually went for Bush in 2004. They may go for McCain in November regardless of who the nominee is. Clinton may have the edge with some of them, but when I was in Columbus and the Columbus suburbs last weekend, I met a lot of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who said they would consider McCain or Obama but would never vote for Clinton. So they both have weaknesses.

[Dark]

25. How the hell was he supposed to win NY?

Or NJ, for that matter.

[Bullet1987]

26. Do people seriously think California and New York

will turn red for McCain? If so, I'd like to puff some of what you're smoking...that's not going to happen.

[DeepModem Mom]

41. I hope you're not addressing me as the OP personally. See post 15. The point...

you make is one of the points Obama's campaign makes in the article, and it makes sense.

[bain_sidhe]

47. No, of course not

But Michigan is a worry. Ohio is a worry. Pennsylvania is a worry.

Enough of those big "worry states" going wrong, and we lose the White House.

Part of the reason I'm not on board with either candidate. Clinton has other "worries" for me... one of the main ones being I don't think she'd have as big a set of coat tails, and we ALSO need to increase our margins in the House, Senate, and state legislatures.

So, they both have stuff that worries me. But then, among people who know me, I'm famouse for being a worrier. My hubby's joke is that I have a worry for every letter of the alphabet.

[amborin]

49. don't bet on it....

California is only blue along the coast

that's why republicans are trying to have a proportional electoral college

much of CA is red

it's not unthinkable that Ca could go red in the GE

hispanics are a big voting block and they like McCain's immigration stance

[surfin]

31. Big Govt is firing it guns to try to destroy Obama

Watch for more of this attack and for him to be her vp.

If you really think, Obama is going to be running against McCain and he is not going to win any of the big states Hillary won. Obama will win some states we have not won in a long time.

Watch the NYT to follow up with this and they will spread it so they can justify clinton stealing the nomination.

[gaspee]

38. Sorry

Obama is going to lose the general election 55-45. Clinton will win it, 50.5 - 48.5

Obama can't win the general because he can't win Ohio, PA, and Fla. Without those three, he can't win. Clinton has a fighting chance in all three.

Name one large red state (one with sizeable electoral college votes) that Obama can win. There isn't one.

[amborin]

50. i agree

i will vote for whoever the dem nominee is...

but don't think obama can win the GE

worst thing is: if folks think he's starting to get a bit bloodied now, just wait and see if he's the nominee

OMG....

[gaspee]

52. Oy

It's gonna get ugly in the GE. I almost feel bad for him. If he and his supporters are this upset over Clinton playing hardball, what the hell is gonna happen when the Republican Noise Machine starts gunning for him?

[roseBudd]

83. Clinton will not win Ohio

[pdxmom]

36. Isn't the entire premise of this article belied by the SUSA electoral

maps that were released two days ago?

[DeepModem Mom]

46. Do you have those, mom? Or a link to a post with them?

I do hope you realize I'm not being antagonistic (am an Obama supporter). I just somehow missed what you're referencing, and it sounds like it would be valuable to see it.

[woolldog]

63. Here you go Mom!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/212016/8597

[DeepModem Mom]

67. Thank you, woolldog! I'll take a look now -- and maybe others will, too. nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

57. No, it is reinforced by the SUSA data

Obama's electoral margin in the SUSA data is based on a hodge-podge of small and medium sized states, while it showed him losing PA, NJ and FL.

In practical terms, no Democrat will win while losing PA or NJ. (And in practical terms, no Dem is likely to win North Dakota.)

That doesn't mean Obama WILL lose PA and NJ. Only that the SUSA data supports the general theme of the article that he is weak in some big, necessary swing states.

[roseBudd]

66. And John Kerry looked strong this many months before the general

[skipos]

76. What do you think of the number of states that Obama outperforms Hillary

vs. the number of states Hillary outperforms Obama?

[roseBudd]

82. This election is going to come down to an electorate that will decide in the last month

My opinion is there will be enough people who don't want another Clinton after Bush, Clinton, Bush

There will be enough people who hate both their guts to energize the GOP base and hurt down ticket dems, which has been reported

And that the new to the political process young voters will disengage

Hillary gets none of these people

And Hillary takes no Southern states

[cottonseed]

71. A ham sandwich will take CA and NY for the democrats.

I keep trying to understand this line reasoning for the sake of Hillary supporters, but each time I try it, it just doesn't add up.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

73. I'm not sure about that... a ham sandwich might lose the Jewish vote in NY

[newfie4]

85. and so will Obama!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. Great Article. Thanks!

It puts things out in their proper perspective.

[VotesForWomen]

78. this is a reality that O groupies refuse to acknowlege. WY, UT, and SC are not going to give dems an

any electoral votes in november. we can't win without electoral votes, and no amount of kool-aide will change that.

[berni_mccoy]

79. Downside of Clinton Strategy: SHE LOSES.

[VotesForWomen]

80. loses what? Wyoming and Utah? nt

[Cha]

84. That is a fucking downside..but the washed out

post now wants a clingon to run against mcsame.

[PBS Poll-435]

86. Actually....

To win in 08, we would need John Kerry's states and Ohio.

Or the Kerry States and Florida

Or the Kerry States and MO/TN


There are a dozen possibilities. But we can not give up Pennsylvania or Michigan or New Jersey.

[gaspee]

90. Exactly

And when Clinton wins PA, it's Obama who might have to face some facts.

All i want is for Dems to win in November. I don't believe Obama can do it. Clinton will be a squeaker.

Of the two left, I think Clinton is the one who can win.

Of course Edwards my first choice and I believe he would have won the general in a landslide. Now we get a nailbiter.

[Jennicut]

92. Uhhh, last time I looked this was a PRIMARY not a GE

Since when would any Dem loose solidly blue states like NY and CA and NJ? I mean come on now. Ohio matters but I think thats BS. Since when should one state decide the fate of the country? The electoral college stinks and all of us who watched the 2000 election know it. That being said, I think either Dem would take Ohio and PA as the ecomomy is much worse now than in 2004 and Kerry almost won Ohio and won PA. Texas is red state country and Florida is crap-can't be trusted as long as there is a Rep governor. Still, all we need is Ohio+Kerry states. If we can't to that then we trylu live in an idiotic country.

[CyberPieHole]

93. If Obama wins the nomination he will lose to McCain in the GE...

a good percentage of the party is just NOT going to vote for Obama. We don't trust him and we don't feel he is ready and experienced enough to run the country. And we are willing to let McCain win if it comes to that.

Obama and his henchmen painted the Clinton's as racists. I won't ever forgive Obama for that.

[Carrieyazel]

94. This argunent sounds good at the surface, but it can get knocked down easily.

This assumes that a state primary/caucus winner will win that state in a general election. Hillary wins the bigger states and those states we will win in the general. Nonsense.


Texas primary winner Hillary has no shot in hell to win Texas in a general.
Tennessee primary winner Hillary has no shot to win it in the general. Florida is also a GE lost cause for Hillary. Obama also loses each of these states in a general.

Conversely, Hillary's California, New York and Massachusetts are "big" states that her OR Obama can both easily take in a general, regardless of primary result.

Hillary's argument turns to dust, as she lost Wisconsin, (not a small state by any means) and we need to win that state in a general.

[ProSense]

95. Total spin. A Democrat is not going to lose CA or NY, and a Democrat could win TX

Democrats Can Win Texas: 34 Electoral Votes in Play

People keep assuming that McCain is a really strong Republican candidate when in actuality he's got issues within the party that could affect turnout.

CA will go Democratic as will NY, from a little over two weeks ago:

As Democratic Race Tightens, Senator Clinton’s Job Approval Dips in Home State

[Carrieyazel]

99. Texas will NOT go Democratic this year; otherwise good post

Too many Rs in Texas, it isn't going to happen.

Actually, the fact that Hillary won the Texas primary undermines her argument. She's saying "I'm winning the big states that we'll need in the general" No way in hell either wins Texas this November. That's a solid McCain state.

[Raffi Ella]

96. Great Post

Thank you!

K&R

[Gore1FL]

98. this will settle all fears, but sadly not the fear mongering

1> The process is set up in a way to represent Democrats from across the nation. Delegates are proportioned to Democratic votes in the last three elections and electoral votes
as shown here:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml

The big state Blue state argument has already been accounted for in that proportion.

2> Now more than ever, all 50 states matter. The 50-states is part of the DNC program since 2005, and has shown to be a sound model with the pickup of the house and Senate in the very first election since its implementation.

Here is the DNC policy:

The Democratic Party is committed to winning elections at every level in every region of the country, and we're getting started right now with a massive effort to fund organizers on the ground in every state.

The ultimate goal? An active, effective group of Democrats organized in every single precinct in the country.

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/a_50_state_strategy /

3> Knowing that all states are impiortant, and know that delegates are distributed to their electoral votes and record in Democratic elections we see what is truly amazing about the 100-175 pledged delegate lead Obama takes to the convention: Even with winning Red states as part of of the states he has won, Obma has still has managed to win what can only be viewed as an insurmountable lead due to the limited number of remaining contests, especially considering a majority of those likely to fall in his column.

4> One cannot base the outcome of the general election on primary wins. This can be seen by loking at the Survey USA polls and electoral maps. Currently those maps show Obama beating McCain 280 to 258 in the general election, and Clinton beating McCain 276 to 262.

http://www.surveyusa.com /

5> Further analysis makes this even more interesting. By taking states that McCain only leads Obama by ONLY 3 points, the following "Red" states become battleground states:
FL, NE, NC, SC, OH TX, and VA which put a total of 122 Red state electors in play. If you increase the margin to 5%, you can add six total electors from ND and SD.
That looks like Obama can win more than enough of the big battleground states.

6> There is no historical precedent, and no current compelling reason, especially in light of the above, for Super Delegates to overturn the expensive contests of the primary/caucus season, neglecting the efforts of the campaign volunteers, the candidates and staff to install the second place candidate who trails at the convention by a minimum of 12% of the total super delegate count.

No realistic scenario exists for Clinton to win the nomination. No realistic scenario exists for Obama to lose the General.

[Carrieyazel]

101. Good post, but NO WAY Nebraska, NC, SC and TX are "in play" his year.

We need to be careful. McCain's winning those states, and we'd better be able to campaign in states we can win in this year. This isn't a popular vote, and the presidential election is like no other.

I also disagree that "no realistic scenario" exists for Obama to lose the General. Plenty of them exist. If he doesn't win Ohio and flips only Iowa for example, he can't win. There are other scenarios too.

Making assumptions based on this wildly inaccurate early GE polling is wrong.

[Gore1FL]

102. Ok

lets say that is true.

Obma only winning with 280-35 electoral votes is bad ho

On Edit, I will agrre that GE polling is unreliable this far out, but that is the dat that forms the agrument Hillary supporters are making.

[HeraldSquare212]

103. What's her strength in states that will not vote Democratic in the fall?

If they're not going to vote Dem in the fall, does it matter? and if he's doing well in them, doesn't it at least put them in play, meaning McCain has to spend time working on those states?