Obama is our best choice if we want to win/pick-up states in the West (poll analysis)

[book_worm]

Barack Obama would be the best candidate to nominate to expand our base in the West and keep such blue states as Oregon and Washington BLUE in November. He has consistently in several polls showed more strength in the South than Sen. Clinton. We want a candidate who will force McCain to spend time and money on states that he wouldn't ordinarily need to. Here is a rundown of poll numbers from several western states in the last three weeks:

Alaska:
Yes, we probably won't win it (the last Dem to do so was LBJ in '64), but Obama is making it a close. McCain leads Obama by only 48-43. However he trounces Hillary 54-36.

California:
Both of our candidates should win the Golden state, but again, it looks like Obama is the one with the larger lead. Obama leads McCain by 53-38; meanwhile Hillary leads by half that amount, 46-39.

Colorado:
We should also get a boost from holding our convention in this state. Right now Obama and McCain are tied in the most recent polling 46-46. However, McCain leads Hillary 52-38.

Montana:
The last Dem to win Montana was Bill Clinton in '92, thanks to Ross Perot. We have a popular Dem governor who will help us. While it's probably unlikely we will win it, Obama is competitve with McCain. McCain leads Obama 48-43. Meanwhile, Clinton loses Montana 54-36.

Nevada:
Both our candiates are leading McCain, but Obama's lead is a bit larger, 45-41, while Hillary is up 44-43.

New Mexico:
Obama leads McCain 45-42, while McCain leads Hillary 46-43.

Oregon:
Oregon has gone Democratic in every presidential election since 1988. Currently Obama leads McCain 48-42, while Hillary loses to McCain 46-40.

Washington:
Like Oregon, Washington has gone Democratic since '88, but most recent polling gives Obama a 48-43 point lead, while McCain is ahead of Hillary 46-43.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/older_content/home/most_recent_articles/most_recent_articles

Furthermore, I think if Obama picked somebody like Gov. Richardson as a running mate, I think it would cause McCain to spend time and money not only on these western states, but his own state of Arizona and even--Texas.

And it isn't only here that Obama is running better than Hillary but polls in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota indicate that Obama is either tied or ahead of McCain while Hillary is behind McCain. For instance, the most recent Iowa Rasmassen poll has Obama up by four points, while Hillary loses to McCain by 15-points.

[WI_DEM]

1. kick

[gcomeau]

2. The often overlooked factor there...

Every state Obama makes competitive (and there are a LOT as we know)... even if he doesn't take them is a state McCain has to spend resources making sure he doesn't lose. And McCain is already going to be in massive trouble against Obama's fundraising machine even without that factored in.

Against Clinton, McCain can pour everything he's got into traditional battlegrounds because there is no chance in hell of him losing any of the traditional red states to her, her negatives in those areas are sky high and she turns out the Republican base as much as she does the Democratic. Obama expands the battleground exponentially, which only further plays to his ability to organize widespread grassroots campaign infrastructure and his fundraising advantage.

[Carrieyazel]

3. California, Oregon, Wash., Hawaii are the only Western states he'll likely win.

He may have at least a shot in Colorado, but I can't see him winning in Nevada or New Mexico, states that are interior western states that border McCain's home state, and have large Hispanic populations.

Early GE polls can be in the ballpark, or totally misleading, so I wouldn't get my hopes up about a couple points "ahead" in NV and NM this early.

[senseandsensibility]

4. Well, what if Richardson is his VP?

eom

[Carrieyazel]

5. That could give him a good shot in NM; hope that the VP slot makes a difference

[Zachstar]

6. It is possible.

Overall tho I don't think we can tell much until Obama starts campaigning towards the GE.

If we tie in what Obama has been doing to weaken Clinton strongholds. (Steady speeches of Hope and Change) He stands a good chance overall. Yet we just don't know yet.

[book_worm]

11. he's ahead in New Mexico, even in Colorado and ahead in Nevada

doing better than Hillary. Dems over the past few election cycles have been making big inroads out west and this could be the election that dems pick up a couple of extra western states. McCain hasn't shown much strength out west. He lost several western contests to Romney. Even in Arizona his primary victory wasn't overly impressive.

It's about time Dems stop writing off regions and concentrating on a few states and really begin to compete nationally. Obama is the candidate who will do it.

[catgirl]

13. He's definately ahead in NM

and with Richardson campaigning with him, it should be no problemo.

[Gore1FL]

7. Of course there is the south and midwest too

He is even competitive in SC, not to mention VA.

He has a chance at some midwest states too if he pick Sebelius as VP.

Obama fits well with the 50 state strategy. And quite frankly, that is the future.

[ORDem]

8. k-n-r

:kick:

[IsItJustMe]

9. K&R

[SunsetDreams]

10. K&R

We have to put all states into play, not just the ones that have gone traditionally blue

[Kber]

12. Thanks for the info.

[book_worm]

14. you're welcome.

[recadna]

15. Hillary will get elected because she can win big states

Ok, great, he is going win AK, ND, MT etc while losing out MI/PA/FL/OH/NJ. Check his absymal numbners against Mccain in these states.

This is why Hillary should get the nod. As long as we carry Kerry's states plus OH, we will win. Hillary can easily do it.

[bagimin]

16. Nice try....the race pretty much ended in Iowa

Say goodnight Gracie (Hillary)