Clinton's General Election Disaster in the Making

[marmar]

from HuffPost:




Paul Jenkins
Clinton's General Election Disaster in the Making
Posted March 9, 2008 | 12:03 PM (EST)



Of the many strange spins the Clinton campaign has sold the media, few are as troubling as the idea that she is the stronger general election candidate: pretty much all polling, sound judgment and anecdotal evidence point to the contrary, but we are lead to believe that New York and Massachusetts, those quintessential swing states, are in danger if Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate.

Hopefully, broader recent polling and perhaps a second look by the math geniuses in the mainstream media (and on many blogs) should finally put to rest the notion that with Clinton at the top of the ticket, Democrats are heading for anything but a potential disaster.

With SurveyUSA's 50 state polling of McCain vs Obama and McCain vs Clinton, as well as studies by other credible pollsters such as Rasmussen, a fascinating picture is emerging, and it is not pretty for those who believe Clinton will do any better than John Kerry or Al Gore if she is the nominee. Let's start with one myth that is just a few days old: Clinton's strength in Ohio. Her thinking (and therefore much of the media's) is that she won the primary, Ohio is important in the general election, Obama is dead because he can't win Ohio. Yet SurveyUSA shows a rather different picture: Clinton and Obama win Ohio with the exact same percentages: 50% to John McCain's 40%.

Then there are the top states in which Clinton does much better than Obama, which read like something straight out of "Deliverance:" Arkansas, West Virginia, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Kentucky (in that order, without adding or omitting any). To give Clinton her due, according to SurveyUSA, she would indeed make the first three of these states competitive. This is ironic since her campaign's whole point is that Obama wins primary states in which Democrats don't have a prayer in the fall. Leaving aside Arkansas, one of Clinton's home states, this is exactly how most objective observers would describe Tennessee and, even more so, Oklahoma. At the other end of the political spectrum, in New York and Massachusetts, yes, Clinton does better there too, but obviously it doesn't matter since any Democrat will win those (on a side note, why does Massachusetts dislike Obama as much as Oklahoma does?). ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/clintons-general-electio_b_90610.html

[BenDavid]

1. The only problem I have with the buttheads at huffpost is they

start with a negative and expound on it still further.No one I read has said if obama is the nominee he would not win NY or Mass.. What I have said and to back me up from those I read say that obama is living in a "fairy tale" (my words) if he believes he can carry red states ie okla.,kansas,utah,wyoming,neb.,kansas,ms.,s.c.,well you get the idea.......

Wonder why arrianna has her panties in a wad everytime she writes about Hillary?

[musiclawyer]

2. Relax people

HRC won't last past Penn. If she wins it won't be by enough. The supers could end this now, but too many of them are loyal insiders. They won't overturn the delegate leader. Period. Obama. After Penn. it's just postponing the inevitable. I expect Edwards to chime in soon too.

[BlueManDude]

3. If HRC gets the nod she will suffer a Dukakis-like loss in November

including losses in PA, NH, ME and fighting for her life in NJ.