Obama and Hillary supporters: Help me decide. What votes does either one get that Kerry didn't get?

[Czolgosz]

I know about the changing map, I know about the trend from Republican and independent identified voters to Democratic identified voters, and I know about the weaknesses which McCain has.

I'm not asking where Democratic votes come from in 2008 as contrasted with 2004; I know this is a much better year for Democrats and I believe that either Hillary and Obama have a better chance than Kerry did.

I'm asking: which voter blocks did Kerry lose that Hillary will win or that Obama will win? What voter blocks did Kerry barely win that Hillary or Obama will decisively win? What blocks did Kerry decisively lose that Hillary or Obama will only barely lose?

Between Hillary and Obama, who will do dramatically better than Kerry did among specific voter blocks?

I'm open to persuasion.

[mmonk]

1. In NC, 130,000+ new voters so far have joined the democratic party

and over 60% of them are Obama supporters. That's worth something especially since it has been occurring in other states as well.

[Captain Hilts]

2. He brings in young voters and she'll bring Independent women to crossover. nt

[4themind]

3. Sorry that this doesn't answer your question but..

I think there are a few more things that you might want to consider, which may or may not be correct (and which I admit I don't have time to find data to support, but you may want to consider as"hypotheses" perhaps)
1.)There appear to be built in advantages for the "democratic" positions vs. "republican"
Why? Polls favoring democratic control in congress vs. republican control (vs. in 2004) . Also I think there was a status-quo-resentment to switching to kerry vs. an incumbent (in times of war) as illogical as that may sound, I think it still may have been a factor on peoples minds, when used in tandem with the swiftboating. People's attitudes towards the war made a drastic turn away from those 2004 levels, in 2006 when the dem's retook congress, and have not fallen to pre-2004 levels to the best of my recollection

2.)McCain, may not have the same degree of Evangelical support. During the primary, McCain was routed by Huckabee among evangelicals in the south, whether they come back to him is an open question, but he seems not to have been their "first choice", and the amount he gains in independents may or may not offset this (especially if one dem candidate is chosen vs. another in my view, but you can have your own views on this as well)

3.) McCain may have a "libertarian" problem, and if either Barr or Paul (or prez/Vp tandem) decide to tap into this, this could hurt McCain. It may only get 5% at best, but as we know from 2000 and 2004 that can make all the difference in certain states.

3.)As a result of 1 and 2 and 3I think that with these advantages, it may not be so much a matter of which candidate will GAIN more (although that's also nice) but which candidate will lose LESS among this favorable democratic season. Hillary will claim working class/older voters, and Obama will claim african americans, younger voters and some dissaffected independents. I really can't say which will rule the day so I'm sorry if this doesn't help you

[democrattotheend]

4. I think an Obama v. McCain race would have a broader map

Here's my take on their electoral chances:

Clinton will either win or lose narrowly. She will follow the Kerry-Gore map and looks a little stronger than Obama in the traditional "Big Three" (OH, PA, FL). If she can pick up Ohio or Florida and hold the Kerry states (which is not a given; polls show her weak in the upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest), she will win. If she fails to do that she'll lose.

Obama will have a tougher time in the Rust Belt and Florida, and will have to work a little harder to hold Pennsylvania and maybe New Jersey (although the poll yesterday suggests otherwise on that front). But he looks more competitive in Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, and seems to have an easier time holding the Kerry states outside of the Rust Belt. He might also be able to force McCain to expend resources in places Republicans haven't had to worry about before. Polls have shown him competitive in North Dakota, Nebraska, Alaska, Indiana, and other states we've never even considered going for. Winning those states is a long shot, but remember that Obama will probably have a lot more money than McCain, and if he can force McCain to waste money defending traditionally solid red states, that in and of itself is a big plus. He might also be able to make a couple southern states with large black populations competitive, though this seems less likely.

Bottom line: Clinton will win or lose narrowly, following the Kerry-Gore map. Obama will put more states in play for himself and for McCain, creating the potential that he could win or lose in an electoral landslide.

[INdemo]

5. Give me a break.......We haven't had such poor choices to choose from since

1988...since John Edwards dropped out we have two candidates that voters just can't make up their minds about..If we had one top quality candidate this thing would have been over a long time ago.
As for John kerry ..remember he didn't lose in 2004...

[Armstead]

6. Either one would pick up swing voters disgusted by the GOP....Unless we Screw the Pooch

Rathert than talk in terms of voting bloicks, I'd say that on a general level, either candidate has a good chance of picking up those voters who went for Bush because he seemed "safer" but whoi have since recognized how unsafe the GOP has become.

But if the Democratic Party continues to Screw the Pooch by dividing its resources and attention and loyalties with this godawful primary campaign that inherent advantage will be lost, regardless of which candidate gets the nomination.

[Stop Cornyn]

7. Hillary appeals to no one who didn't vote for Kerry except those with Repub fatigue who will also

vote Obama.

As we have seen in the primaries, Obama brings in a whole new generation of younger voters.

Assuming the nomination is decided fairly, both candidates beat McCain (probably) but a Hillary nomination would cost us countless down-ballot races in those states where she won't even bother to campaign except to come into the state to fund-raise and take money away from local races (as she would in Texas).

If Obama wins the pledged delegates and has the majority of voter support in races where both candidates were on the ballot (i.e., this includes the caucus states - which Hillary disenfranchises every time she blabbers about having more votes - and excludes Michigan but includes Florida), and somehow Hillary steals it, we lose the presidency by vast margins, we lose the majorities in the Senate and House, and the party is DOA for a decade.