For anyone who thinks Obama will win the GE in a landslide, look at this.

[BzaDem]

http://electoral-vote.caida.org/2004-presidential/

In particular, look at the bottom-right while the animation is playing.

This is going to be a very hard election. The swiftboating will be relentless. The media will be relentless. We may win in the end, but anyone who thinks we can just lie down and watch a massive Democratic realignment with Obama is living in fantasy land. That kind of attitude is why we keep losing.

[GarbagemanLB]

1. and anyone who thinks Hillary has a better shot than Obama is living in a fantasy land as well.

[sniffa]

2. Yeah, yeah, we get it. You think Obama will lose everywhere

You've said that in enough threads now. Enjoy your stay. :hi:

[uponit7771]

3. And you think they'll vote for Hillary or do you think Hillary will have to apeall...

...to massive turnout by her base who she hasn't played to until the primaries?

If Obama wasn't in the race then your statement would have more validity

[BzaDem]

7. I certainly don't think Hillary will cause a massive democratic realignment either.

I think it is going to be very close either way, and I don't think it is a guaranteed win for Democrats either way. I just think the electoral college math makes it harder, since it puts lots of weight on Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

[jaysunb]

4. Sorry....it's a new day friend

old models don't hold up this time around.

[DJ13]

5. Try running Hillary in that enviroment

Her negatives start in the 40+% range, wont take much to push that above 50% with all the skeletons in her and Bill's closet.

[blm]

34. Terry McAuliffe said Hillary would have run 2000 and 2004 by 10-15%

Yeah. Terry 'Don't bother to secure the election process' McAuliffe.

[SOS]

41. LOL

2004: To get a 15 point spread, Clinton would have had to get 18 million Bush voters to switch to her to get a 60-45 split.
This guy lives in a fantasy land.

[skipos]

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

against McCain? You have looked at the SUSA state by state polls, and the margins of victory, correct?

[BzaDem]

10. I have looked at the SUSA polls. That is my entire point.

This animation goes through GE hypothetical matchups from May to November. My entire point is that they are not accurate.

[papau]

27. yep - and Obama has no real edge over Hillary in electoral votes

[skipos]

35. So what do you think of the number of states that Obama outperforms Hillary

vs. McCain in those SUSA polls? You've looked at the margins of each candidate, right?

[Shakespeare]

8. No matter who WE nominate, McCain is an incredibly weak candidate.

Ergo, I'm not that worried about the general election. By the time our campaign against McCain is done, he's goign to make Bob Dole look like a power candidate by comparison.

--there is a phenomenal amount of dirt on McCain, both old AND new.
--his unpredictable bad temper will be very apparent when he's challenged.
--his age is an issue.
--his health is a HUGE issue.

I don't think the "war hero" stuff (which is mostly garbage anyway) is going to do him much good, especially considering the general public's current feelings on Iraq.

:shrug:

[BzaDem]

12. I hope you are right.

I think we could have said the same thing about Bush (different rationale, but still a weak candidate). We all always think they are weak candidates.

[Shakespeare]

18. The last three things I mentioned were not strikes against Bush.

And the dirt on him was a bit more removed from the national level than McCain's has been (BCCI, Silverado, lobby reform, etc.).

Plus, McCain is a raving loon when he loses his temper, and there's been some coverage of that already (see Mark Benjamin's piece on Salon last week, and subsequent appearance on Olbermann).

He's going to come off as corrupt, unstable, old (not being ageist, but beginning a presidency at 71 does raise valid questions about his ability to last an entire term), and unhealthy (cancer).

He's soiled his previous rep as a maverick to a great, great extent, so I don't think he'll be able to coast on that, either.

[BzaDem]

23. I hope McCain has a temper tantrum before the election.

That will certainly help Obama, who is considered to have a very good temperament.

But unfortunately the media still willingly promotes the "Maverick" notion, and is now completely hands off the corruption stuff since they think the NyTimes went too far. McCain is weak, but the question is will the media report on these things. Looking at how they did in the 2004 election, I would be hesitant to say yes.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. I agree with this...

The one thing that the Dems have going for them is that McCain is a weak candidate and a number of the MANY disparate factions that make up the repuke party are pissed off at not being the focus of attention (e.g., the fundies).

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

9. Not going to be easy. Landslide no, but Obama will do just fine if Hillary would stop muddying him.

[tridim]

11. The GE campaigns haven't even started yet.

Just wait until McCain goes off the deep end at the first debate. 19% will seem like massive support by November.

[Medusa]

13. That is going to be the case no matter who the nominee is

we learned that lesson in 2000 and 2004.

[leftofcool]

14. When the rethugs get ugly, it will get even redder

[Vinca]

16. I don't think Obama supporters believe it will be an easy election,

but it will be an even harder election for Hillary. Before it's over, Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones will have their own show on Faux News.

[zulchzulu]

17. If you want to see what a Clinton-McCain race would look like...

The Repugs would come out in droves to vote against the Clintons AND the only way the Clintons would win is if they cheated, hence pissing off so many new voters who would come out in droves for Obama.

[BzaDem]

19. The Repugs who hate Clinton are most likely the ones already voting.

[XemaSab]

21. I wouldn't give her Oregon, Washington, or Iowa

:hide:

[knixphan]

20. It's not about their weakness or lack thereof

It's about our STRENGTH.

You don't play 'not to lose'. You play to win.

You donate until you can't.

You swing your under-informed friends.

You get visible, and don't leave campaigning up to your candidate.

You participate, you don't back down when GOP talking points get thrown at you.

You don't keep using Bush's election as a reason to doubt.

You play to win.

[BzaDem]

24. If Obama wins the nomination, I will work my heart out for him.

But until then, I think it is very useful to take into account who is the most electable. I'm not playing "to lose" by thinking that.

[LibDemAlways]

22. The election will turn on the answer to the following:

Do Americans prefer four more years of Bush policy to having a woman or a black man in the WH? We'll find out the answer in Nov.

[RememberWellstone]

25. Without big states

He is toast.

[Oleladylib]

26. absolutely

[donheld]

30. It's stupid to think he can't win CA, MA, NY, MI at the very least.

[LibDemAlways]

32. As a Californian I think McCain would have a good shot

at this state. The morons here put Ahnold in Sacramento, so they aren't adverse to electing a repuke they believe to be more moderate, as McCain is portrayed in the media. Plus, he's from neighboring Arizona. I wouldn't automatically discount his chances here - though the race would be close.

[donheld]

38. McCain might have a shot at CA, but to say Obama hasn't a chance

is as I said Stupid. Obama can win CA. Are Californian's not tired of War and more war? Are they not sick of a very broken economy? Do you think they care about health care/ education etc? Is McCain going to help with any of these? And then there's the supreme court. You think the majority of California want the courts to go further to the right? Obama can win.

[LibDemAlways]

39. I think Obama or Hillary could win here, too. Just

saying that it's one big state McCain could take. It will be close no matter which Dem wins the nom.

[damonm]

45. No.

[damonm]

44. As a Californian, I think you're WAY off base.

Ahnuld is pro-Choice; McCain is not.
The Iraq war is HUGELY unpopular here; McCain wants to continue it, AND attack Iran.

The Democratic Nominee takes CA by not less than 15% of the vote - take it to the bank.

[bowens43]

31. and you think HIlary would do better?!??!?!

ROFLMAO! You hillary supports are in-fucking-sane!!!

[LSK]

48. You really think Obama will loose NY, NJ, Mass, California???

:shrug:

[DemGa]

28. Worst. disaster. ever --Obama

[bowens43]

29. O don't think anyone is claiming it will be a landslide

but what we do know is that it's not possible for Hillary to win the GE. Obama has a better then even chance.

[Independent-Voter]

33. If HRC is the Dem nominee, expect more of this...(image in msg)

It'd be ugly.

[onenote]

36. its going to be a tough, hard fought election whether our candidate is Obama or Clinton

And anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. I think Obama is the stronger candidate, but I think either could win and either could lose. A lot can and will happen between now and November.

[ileus]

37. Hillary wins 50 states, Obama 37

[LSK]

49. Ha!!!

[Beacool]

40. Yep, and if Hillary is thrown under the bus

I'll be home watching and laughing my butt off. Disenfranchise Hillary and her millions of supporters and see what happens in November.

Remember that united we stand, divided we fall.

:shrug:

[theredpen]

42. Translation:

Let Hillary win with fewer pledged delegates than Obama or we're going to let McCain win out of spite.

Vote Nader!

[Beacool]

52. Nader might be my choice if Hillary is not on the ticket. n/t

[theredpen]

53. Well, thanks in advance.

FOUR MORE YEARS!

[GarbagemanLB]

46. You'd have an argument....if Hillary was disenfranchised. As it stands he leads her on all counts.

[goldcanyonaz]

47. IF she's been thrown under the bus? She was thrown under after New Hampshire.

[Beacool]

55. Actually, it was after IA.

Remember how everyone of the pundits was writing her obituary??? Bunch of vultures!!!!!

[theredpen]

43. Here's where we are now.

Where you you rather start from? The map on the left or the map on the right? The right hand map shows a candidate who has to play defense all the way to November. Lose one of those blue states and kiss the Presidency goodbye.

Meanwhile, the candidate on the left is within the margin or error of winning the following states:

Florida
Nebraska
New Jersey
North Carolina
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas

You are correct that the fight will be difficult, but let's at least start with the candidate who is farther ahead already.

[Sir Jeffrey]

50. You are ignoring the major difference between 2004 and 2008...

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

The right track/wrong track split in 2004 was around 47-51.

The current right track/wrong track numbers are around 25-75.

McCain is running for Bush's 3rd term. The right candidate can take these numbers and put a lot of states in play that were out of bounds in 2004.

Actually, I suspect that the right track/wrong track split is going to get worse as gas hits $4 a gallon, as more people lose their homes, as the recession starts hitting people hard, etc. So I would politely suggest that you revisit your "fantasy land" comment, because the only fantasy I see is the one where you make no distinction between the circumstances surrounding 2004 and the ones that will surround 2008.

[terrya]

51. No one thinks that Obama will win in a landslide

And anyone who does is a fool.

[LisaL]

54. Then there are lots of fools on DU, cause

many here are claiming Obama is gonna win in a landslide.