Honestly, the lameness of this line of reasoning is becoming utterly intolerable, no matter which candidate it's summoned for.  Can we please have a moratorium on this specious reasoning until someone demonstrates why a victory in a *primary* in a given state (or a given demographic group) shows that that candidate is better able to win the *general election* in that state (or demographic group)?

The proposition is patently false: None of the people making those arguments are ready to put money on Obama winning Idaho or losing Massachusetts in November.  So why does the discussion continue down these lines?  Can someone present any shred of evidence that supports this plainly specious argument?

liebug: here here!!

Yeah, without more specifics this argument's pretty specious.  The place a case could be made would be a) A state with a Wide Open Primary, (Some place like Georgia where any one can vote in any primary, ie no registration) b)  The candidate wins the primary with a large number of independents.  and c) Pulls in more votes than the other candidate, and wins his own primary handily.  Spinning anything else doesn't answer anything.

And another thing:  The premise behind Ickes's argument (as well as that our fellow commenters pccostello and jmkerr) is that we shouldn't nominate a candidate who will be unable to get the support of people who voted for the other candidate in the primaries.  Is that really an inquiry the Clinton campaign wants to pursue?

Seems to me to be way too early to get into the state by state electoral math. The big picture is that, in competition with McCain, Hillary would be stronger than Obama among Hispanics and possibly working class whites - although I suspect the working class whites would mostly come around. Obama would be stronger among independents (BIG against McCain), Republicans (not that many, but maybe enough to matter) and he would bring so many NEW young voters and black voters into the process that it would more than counteract any possible advantages Clinton would have among her strong groups. To be sure, we can't possibly know at this point which one would be more vulnerable to the Republican attack machine. I don't see any evidence that Hillary would necessarily do any better than Obama. She might, he might, we just don't know. Oh, and one other group that Obama is slightly stronger than Clinton with - Clinton haters. And, I'm afraid that after this primary campaign, they come from several different areas - republicans, independents, probably a good number of blacks would stay home if the nomination is wrested away from Obama with super delegates, and a fair number of run-of-the mill democrats may be too disgusted to vote for her at this point. I don't think I'm in this group, but depending on what sorts of dirty tricks Bill / Hill might actually be willing to do to get the nomination at this point, I might join that group.

So what Ickes is saying is that Hillary is already prepared to write-off certain states in the Novemeber election.  This implicitly concedes how November resources are going to be shifted away from those states.... so how is this possibly going to make uncommitted superdelegates in those states eager to  jump on the Hillary bandwagon?

BTW, this backs up what Eve Fairbanks says in the current issue about the willingness of Hillary's people to to ditch Howard Dean's 50-state strategy.

It seems worth noting that Obama will have one weapon in his arsenal that Hillary won't. A strong and potentially conciliatory VP. Hillary can't mend fences with the African American community with Evan Bayh or Wes Clark, but Obama can court Reagan Dems with Jim Webb on the ticket, or disgruntled feminists with Kathleen Sebelius or just plain white guys with Chet Culver or Mark Warner. Clinton will just have Bill, and we've all seen how useful he's been.

Ickes is right: an Obama candidacy writes off Florida, Arkansas, and, perhaps, Michigan and Ohio.  A Clinton candidacy writes off Colorado.  Obama and Clinton will both win Nevada, Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri.

Also, I don't think you can tell from margins in caucus states what the electorate in a general election will do.  I think there's a reverse Bradley effect with regard to votes for Obama in caucus states, because everyone sees (and will try to influence) your vote.  

looper, please explain.  

How well will the primary loser do in the general?  It depends on two things:  (1) how that person does in the general among people who didn't vote in the primary, and (2) the willingness of his primary opponent's supporters to vote for him the general.

The results of the primary tell you nothing about either of those two things.  

Where am I going wrong?

Also, what basis do you have for asserting that Clinton will win any of those states -- particularly Iowa (which Bush won in 2004)?

I don't like the electability argument in general -- who the heck knows?  The polls have been way off, there definitely has been either a bradley-effect or an "I'm embarassed to be seen as a Hillary voter in public" (which I think partially explains why she does so poorly in caucuses).  I know a lot of Obama supporters swear they'll never vote for Clinton, which I think is pretty pathetic (for the ones who are avowed liberals/progressives), but I can see a lot of Clinton's elderly supporters jumping to McCain.  

Run on the merits, let MI/FL revote, and whoever has the most total votes at the end should win (since the gerrymandered delagate selection process didn't produce a clear winner and the principle of "all votes count equally" shouldn't be further damaged by superdelagates voting their "conscience" )  

Everyone is missing the point about the Clintons' effort to dismiss Obama's win in red states like Idaho and Nebraska.  Even the most fervent Obamophiles don't think he will carry those states, but there will be open Congressional and Senate seats in many red states, and Obama's strong showings there suggests he might be able to have coattails that extend to those states.  For Hillary, Ickes, and the other Clintonistas to denigrate these victories reinforces the idea that Bill and Hillary only cared about their power in the White House in the 90's and not about expanding the Democratic party.  The Dems of course hemorrhaged Congressional seats and state houses during the supposedly wonderful-for-Dems 1990s.

Yes, although there is a lot I admired about Bill Clinton, the bitter truth is that neither he nor Hillary gives a crap about the Democratic party.  They never have.  In New York, she has absolutely NOTHING to support local Democratic committees, in sharp contrast to Chuck Schumer.  If Hillary thinks she even might capture the nomination via super-delegates while wrecking the party, she will try it.  I was heartened to read Pelosi quoted in the Times that MI and FL will not be seated because you cannot change the rules after the fact.  My take is that the party heavies are getting ready to face down the Clintons if Obama wins more delegates to ensure that his delegates translate into the nomination.  

I think Hillary is really a Goldwater Girl at heart anyway.  Not even really a Democrat, just an opportunist.

By the way babs, I am willing to dump insults on Peretz who routinely disparages anyone on the other side of an issue from him because THIS IS HARMLESS.  There is no consequence to these blogs.  They are a weird form of entertainment and god knows what else.  But when you get into the real world, things such as the nature of the legal system or assassination as the preferred means of dealing with enemies regardless of the circumstances really do matter.  Peretz doesn't get a fraction of the abuse he deserves.  I'm only trying to help out a bit.

lymon, why do you ignore swing voters and independents? What is it with you, Kerr, and pccostello from acknowledging that they exist and Obama is winning big with them. Hillary does well with the base, big deal, so did Kerry and Dukakis and Mondale. I will never vote for Hillary but will happily campaign for McCain if Hllary wins the nomination. I simply don't see how the numbers add up for Hillary. Don't get me wrong, there might be droves of women who might come out for Hillary at the last second, but I ain't seeing it. And whoever won't vote for Obama because he is black, won't vote for Hillary because she is a woman, so that cancels that vote out.

At this point I am hoping Hillary wins the nod, McCain crushes her so I can see her go boo hoo in her concession speech, and watch her be a bigger laughing stock then Kerry is, setting up Obama for 2012.

To be honest, she is the first Democrat candidate I have grown to hate, and I liked her last year.

I second liebugs sensible observation.

But will those Obama supporters who believe he will win big with independents, especially independent male voters, especially against McCain, please tell me on what they are basing this assumption? What appeal has he made, what issue positions has he taken, what natural affinity does he offer, that will accomplish this feat that has historically been hard for Democrats to pull off?

Is it is all based on the fact that in the primary independent voters are voting for Obama over Clinton? If so, have you considered the possibility that this may be mostly an anti-Clinton vote that may not hold up in the general election?

In '72 McGovern also won Independent and moderate Republican votes in the primaries (as well as Wallace voters in those states where Wallace didn't make it on the ballot). But they didn't show up for him in the November.

"Moreover, with the exception of Missouri, Obama's winning these states by large--in many cases overwhelming--margins."

Oh, please. Virginia's primary was 30% black. The rest of the results you cite--with the exception of Missouri--were caucuses, which simply can't be extrapolated to the a primary vote.

"we shouldn't nominate a candidate who will be unable to get the support of people who voted for the other candidate in the primaries."

That's not my argument. (In fact, I'm not arguing what should or shouldn't be done but rather what the demographics seem to clearly indicate.)

There's a clear difference between "people who voted for the other candidate" and "demographics that demonstrate clear preference for the other candidate". Hispanics, Asians, and whites have overwhelmingly demonstrated a preference for Hillary. If you restrict whites to white Democrats, the majority is even larger. And yes, that is an extremely  sensible argument for Hillary to make and for the Democrats to consider. The Democrats are the party of identity politics. You pay attention to what the identities tell you.

Again, this could change. Maybe the determined effort by the press and the party leadership to build momentum for Obama will have an effect, and he'll win the appropriate support from whites and Hispanics in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. I'm not dismissing that possibility. I'm only pointing out that it's essential.

As for "swing states", Florida is the obvious problem--so obvious that it boggles the mind that Noam, Obamabot that he is, wouldn't mention it. First, without Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, he can only win the nomination by ensuring that Florida stays out. Not a way to win fans. Furthermore, despite Marty Peretz's noble attempt to talk it back, Obama's foreign policy advisers aren't terribly popular with an important Florida demographic, who voted 2:1 for Hillary in the primary.

And then there's California, home to a whole bunch of Hispanics and Asians who made it clear they aren't fond of Obama. I don't know that California would be in play, but Obama would have to do a huge amount of identity politicking to keep it blue. If McCain were smart enough to bring up Obama's support for removing the SocSec income cap, that'd push a bunch of moderate swing voters over to his side right away. There are plenty of California moderates that might be convinced to support McCain over Obama.

Hillary makes all those problems go away. She introduces no new problems, and is a known quantity. She will have won (if this debate is to continue) California, New York,New Jersey, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida, and Michigan.

I submit that Dems would be fools to take the pledged "approved" delegate count as gospel and give it to Obama based on Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Alabama (all won on the basis of a hugely disproportionate black vote which won't be the case in the general), Nebraska, Idaho, Kansas, Washington, Maine, and all the other states where he won in white liberal caucuses--or, in the case of Utah and Connecticut, liberal white primaries.

Maybe they will. I realize they can't stand Clinton. But that seems a pretty suicidal move.

jmkerr

Please explain how senator Clinton can win any of the crucial states on your list. My own guess is an at least 30% stay at home or defection by African American voters. But for the sake of argument lets say its only 5%.

How does any democrat win Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania or Missouri if 5% of the expected "black" votes find something else to do with their under appreciated time (to see you tell it) on election day? I'm also kind of curious how well you think Mark Warner will do in Virgina without those votes? How do you think Mary Landrieu will fare down in Louisiana. Or let me put it this way, once republicans turn dismissive statements like your's Ickes' and Penn's into spiffy ads an shiny mailers how well do you think guys like Lynn Swann, Ken Blackwell or Michael Steele will do the next time they run statewide?

By the way, using your logic. You should be wondering what happens nationwide if the 80-90% of the African American and 80% of voters under 30 who've demonstrated that they "aren't that fond of" Clinton stay home or switch sides.  

Don't hold your breath, arsonplus.  Jmkerr is all assertion, no reasoning.  Also a racist.  Also a coward, never explaining how Obama will be crippled by his inability to win Clinton's voters, but Clinton will not be crippled by her inability to win Obama's even larger number of voters.  He has no answer, because his argument is not an honest one to begin with.  If you want his real opinion, go back a few days to the post where he asserted that Obama hasn't won the most votes "in any meaningful sense," because, after all, you can't count black people's votes.

Finally: If you think you can use February poll data to assess November electability (a big "if"), why go at it with this crazy patchwork of observations based on demographic data garnered from primary exit polls in each state?  Why not just look at the head-to-head polls pitting each Democrat against McCain?  Those polls currently show Obama running several points ahead of McCain, and Clinton running several points behind.  

(I know people will say it's individual states that matter.  Fine, look at those polls state-by-state if they exist.  But there's no way someone running several points behind McCain is going to be in a better position, Electoral-College-wise, than someone running several points ahead.)

I don't put much stock in those polls.  But they sure beat the convoluted arguments that Ickes and others are making (which are not only based on polls, but on polls of an incomplete sample of the electorate).  Shouldn't they be the first thing a journalist asks about when these arguments arise?

Furthermore, all these assertions that because one democrat drew  a higher proportion of one demographic (hispanic, union, women, whatever) that those voters "don't like" the other candidate, is simply stupid.

A crass analogy but appropriate. My daughter loves ice cream. Give her a choice between mint chip and vanilla and she'll pick mint chip every time. But if mint chip isn't available, she'll take vanilla and be very happy with it.

Same, I think, with many democratic partisans.  

There are two things, however, that I think give Obama an advantage. One, the young voters. who haven't come out in big numbers before. Unlike with Dean in 04, the youth has turned out BIG this year and I see nothign to suggest that that won't be the same in November - at least if Obama is the nominee.

Second, Obama clearly is the candidate who draws more independents. Sure McCain will draw some of them, but Obama has a much better chance than HIllary of capturing a lot of those middle votes.

And as for the suggestions of Ickes and other Clintonites that no Democrat can win in places like Nebraska, if that is the case who is Ben Nelson?? THe fact is, THEIR democrat has no chance, but Obama might in some of these places, At the very least, he doesn't damage the dems in downballot races which are just as important to the long term success of the party. That's the other thing that scares me about Bill and Hillary. They don't give a damn about the party or frankly anyone but themselves.

"never explaining how Obama will be crippled by his inability to win Clinton's voters, but Clinton will not be crippled by her inability to win Obama's even larger number of voters."

To the comprehension-impaired: I am not saying that Obama won't win all of Clinton's voters. I am saying that Clinton's voters are more fundamental to Obama than Obama's are to Clinton.

Presidents win without the black and elite white vote every four years, like clockwork. In fact, the one way Dems assure themselves a presidential loss is by nominating the elite's chosen one. Certainly, if blacks stay home entirely, it would be bad for the Democrats, but the odds are excellent that blacks will take sides on this just as everyone else will. So if Hillary's the nominee, she might not get a huge percent of the black vote, but she'll get enough.

Elites, she doesn't need in huge numbers--again, assuming they don't vote for her, which is a big assumption (despite what you all say all your friends will do).

Yes, Obama will win many of Clinton's voters. But her voters aren't reliably Democratic, and they voted in huge demographic chunks. Individual voters are one thing. Big demographic signals are very different.

Hispanic and Asian Democrats didn't read the Big Book Of White Liberal Guilt. They don't have to play by the rules you think are in place. They think Obama's ill-qualified to be President, they'll vote for McCain. They won't be moved and wowed by the notion of putting a black man in the White House, the way that the media and elites go gaga over. White downscale voters have read the book, and reject it. They're fed up with it.  The more they learn that Obama's win was based on overwhelming liberal and black support, they more they'll distrust him.

He won't lose everyone. This is still a split electorate. But the splits will show up in different places, and I don't think they'll favor the Democrats if Obama is the nominee.

Finally, the whole idea that Dems vote for Dems no matter what is so deluded it beggars any attempt at simple mockery. Have we had a solid bloc of Democratic presidents for the past 60 years and I just missed the memo?

The big problem with Jmkerr's arguement, this one...

"Yes, Obama will win many of Clinton's voters. But her voters aren't reliably Democratic, and they voted in huge demographic chunks. Individual voters are one thing. Big demographic signals are very different."

is that it is completely contrary to all the polling. Clinton has consistently done better among identified democratic voters while Obama has won independents (in places where they could vote) by huge margins. That isn't to say that all of those independents will vote democratic in the fall, but of those that did in these Feb primaries, most appeared to favor Obama. So the democraphics actually seem to suggest precisely the opposite of what JMKerr is asserting.

Ted

TJLINKO

"Second, Obama clearly is the candidate who draws more independents. Sure McCain will draw some of them, but Obama has a much better chance than HIllary of capturing a lot of those middle votes.'

Why? Please, someone making this assertion, tell me your reasoning? What does Obama have to offer these voters (other than not being a woman and Hillary, an advantage McCain shares)?

"while Obama has won independents (in places where they could vote) by huge margins."

He has won the independents *who voted in the Dem primary*. Look up "selection bias" and grasp its relevance to the issue.

"What does Obama have to offer these voters (other than not being a woman and Hillary, an advantage McCain shares)? "

Not a thing, particularly once the Republicans have forced people to realize what the media has neglected to point out due to their love and devotion: Obama is a standard liberal hack.

Esmense -- I think Tjlinko's argument doesn't proceed from guesses about what independents want to be offered, but from polling data that shows him outperforming the other candidates among independents.  I don't trust either method for determining, in February, who will be electable in November.  But if we're going to speculate, I'd take evidence of how independents currently feel over guesses about what they want from a candidate.

Jmkerr is so obsessed with doing racial math that he remains in complete denial about bottom-line numbers.  Not only has Obama won more votes (which jmkerr refuses to acknowledge), but he's running much better against McCain in current polls than Clinton is -- beating him, that is, instead of losing to him.  (Jmkerr is no position to disparage polling here, since all his racially-obsessed arguments originate from exit poll data.)

So tell us, jmkerr: if Obama is a hopelessly boutique candidate, who appeals only to black people and elites, who are all these people telling the pollsters that they'll vote for him over John McCain?  And where is Clinton's grand coalition when the pollsters are calling?

"Jmkerr is no position to disparage polling here, since all his racially-obsessed arguments originate from exit poll data"

Um, how to put this? You can't seriously be foggy on the difference between expected act and the actual act. Exit polls are data on actual votes.

"Not only has Obama won more votes "

I haven't refused to acknowledge this. I've said that caucus votes are irrelevant in that calculation . Right at this moment, I think Obama has won more, but it wasn't true after Super Tuesday. His worry is that it also won't be true after TOP. If it is true, most of his problems go away.

"And where is Clinton's grand coalition when the pollsters are calling?"

The same place they were when the pollsters missed them for the primaries. Not just Clinton's grand coalition--Obama's too. There's really no point in relying on predictive polls.

Jmkerr:  Uh, no.  Exit polls are polls, and have margins of error just like other polls.  And they are polls of a subsample of the population that will be voting in November, rather than the entire sample.  So please tell us why they are better predictors of the general election than a poll of the general electorate.

Ah, I see: when you can use polls to support your argument, they're good.  But when they contradict your argument, we're supposed to trust you that they're wrong, or that they will change once people come to their senses.  In other words, the only support for jmkerr's assertions is . . . jmkerr's assertions.

biglie --

The polling you are talking about is similar to the polling that consistently, for months on end, showed Guiliani as the Republican front runner. All those polls really indicated was that Republicans would have preferred someone new, and for awhile thought, hey, this guy may have some new things going for him. But, a closer look showed that while he was "new" he wasn't at all "what I want in a candidate."

Anyone making a case for Obama gaining the votes of independent men has to be able to demonstrate why Obama would be "what they want" in a candidate. Not based on "guesses" but based on their voting history and the issues that have been demonstrated to motivate their vote.

Esmense: And you will clairvoyantly know "what they want" without using poll data?  And then scientifically determine whether Obama is offering them what they want in a candidate?

Look, I've said I don't put any faith in these polls to predict what will happen in November.  But to suggest that polls show that Clinton is *more* electable than Obama is wishful thinking, pure and simple.  If you're going to draw *any* conclusion from poll data, the strongest thing you have to work with is the fact that Obama currently leads McCain in the polls by several points, while Clinton trails him by several points.  For jmkerr to ask people to disregard those polls, but buy into a convoluted argument based on exit poll determinations of how individual demographic groups voted in Democratic primaries, puts him squarely in la-la land.  I'm still not sure exactly what your alternative approach is, esmense; what kind of data would satisfy you?  And do you have any evidence that Cinton is better able to make that case?

I might add, jmkerr, that even the exit polls don't support any of your assertions.  Where is the exit poll that says that working class voters won't support Obama if he is the nominee?  

liebig --

There are polls that ask voters what they may do in the future, and then there are polls that ask voters why they did what they did. There is a certain amount of unreliability in both types of polling, but nonetheless, this far out from the election (before the general election campaign has even begun), the second kind is a little more useful. And then, as I mentioned, there is the actual history of voters' behavior. Remember, we are talking here about a bloc of voters who have, in the past, been less than enthusiastic about Democratic candidates.

Based on their past behavior and the kind of issues that we know have motivated independent male voters in the past -- concern about government spending and over-reach, taxes, gun issues, abuse of power and corruption (such as the House banking scandal of the early 90s and the more recent lobbying scandals) --  I'm perfectly willing to accept that Hillary Clinton is unlikely to get their vote.  But I haven't seen anyone, yet, provide reasons why (except for one weak lobbying bill)  Obama, especially against McCain, would do significantly better.

The fact is, these voters are "independent" because they are, in general, very distrustful of government and wary of abuses of government power -- no matter which party controls the government. The disadvantage Democrats, all Democrats, have with these voters is their desire to use government as a tool for good, and their tendency to promote its expansion.

I hear you, esmense.  (Please don't think that because I am hostile to jmkerr, I am hostile to every Obama-skeptical commenter on this site.)  But I think you're way overstating the case about why independents are independents.  The thing is, it's easy to generate arguments about why independents will like any one candidate.   Your description of independents simply makes them conservative Republicans in disguise, in which case you're right, the Democrats don't have a chance.  But I could just as easily say that they'll be attracted to Obama because of his emphasis on moving past partisan bickering.  All those arguments are ultimately just blowing smoke, pure speculation.  There's no objective basis for evaluating any of them.  But where's the evidence that that's what motivates them, to the extent that you claim?  (Also, why have female independents disappeared from the analysis?)  

And I'm not sure why asking voters in 2004 why they did what they did is a better predictor of what they will do in 2008 than asking them what they will do in 2008.  Of course they might change their minds about who they'll vote for in November, but they also might change their minds about what they want in a candidate (how could the two not coincide)?  As far as evidence goes, what do you make of the heavy tilt toward Obama among the independents who have chosen to participate in the caucuses and primaries?  If independents really meet your description, what the heck is going on with that?

it is rather interesting to see the clintons squirm, their surrogates on tv come up with explanations for this and that.  it is beginning to exasperate the  interviewers even.  if she wins with these tactics then god bless  the clintons. the rest of us will have seen and learned what they are capable of.  all this is making the republicans seem decent again, with a war hero at its helm and differences healed for the good of all.  this does count for some of us.  the clintons will cling to the last drop . either way their day in the sun is over,... clinton cannot be elected under the circumstances now on display.

it is a simple fact that in states that had open primaries, and when independents had the choice to vote for McCain (this was when no result was foreordained) and Obama, the majority went for Obama. And now we are to believe these voters will then go to McCain over Obama in the general, but if it is McCain versus Hillary will go for Hillary? What tortured logic can justify this nonsense.

I am a swing voter, I love McCain and think he is the best candidate to do what is right in Iraq, in addition I agree with much of his voting record. However I will vote for Obama over him, but I will never vote for Hillary. So why vote for Obama? Because of all the candidates he seems to be the one with the most potential. If he wins, he will win with the largest coattails and get the most done. McCain will be saddled with a Dem. Congress, and Hillary (if she somehow did win) will come in with sky high negatives and no room to move, she is also promising everyone everything and will certainly let everyone down.

liebig --

(Also, why have female independents disappeared from the analysis?)  

Because they always seem to disappear from Obama supporters analysis. Perhaps that's because they believe both Clinton and Obama would have a good chance with Independent and moderate Republican women.

blackton --

In '72 McGovern won the Democratic nomination with the votes of young, first-time, anti-war voters and cross-over moderate Republicans and independents voting in Democratic primaries -- mostly in Republican states in the West with fairly large numbers of independent voters. In fact, he only won Democratic primaries in 4 states that had voted Democratic in the '68 election (NY, MA, RI, CT), and 3 other states outside the mostly conservative West (VA, GA and WI).  But, although they had crossed over to vote for him in the primaries, independents and moderate Republicans didn't show up for him in the general election. And, as you know, he didn't win any of the states that had given him the nomination except Massachusetts.

"Please don't think that because I am hostile to jmkerr, I am hostile to every Obama-skeptical commenter on this site"

As I mentioned elsewhere, it cracks me up when some noname dweeb utterly indistinguishable from every other dimbulb Obamabot posting in a safe site conceives a hate-on for me. Doesn't it bother them even slightly that to expend any energy tracking someone who couldn't distinguish one from the other for money?

"And now we are to believe these voters will then go to McCain over Obama in the general, but if it is McCain versus Hillary will go for Hillary? "

No. You are supposed to realize that Hillary won't be in as dire need of the independents if she can't win them, because she has much deeper support in Hispanics and whites than Obama does.

As for Obama's much-storied popularity among independents, try this for a humbling blast from the past:

Here's a fun blast from the past: (query.nytimes.com/.../fullpage.html):

"Five months from today, the nation will elect a new President, and as things now stand Michael S. Dukakis is much the most likely victor, according to surveys taken by The New York Times and CBS News.

Five months from today, the nation will elect a new President, and as things now stand Michael S. Dukakis is much the most likely victor, according to surveys taken by The New York Times and CBS News. "

....

"With the California poll results adjusted to reflect the likely proportions of Democrats, Republicans and independents voting in November, Mr. Dukakis led Mr. Bush by 10 percentage points among those who cast primary ballots, the same margin as in last month's national poll.

How that could happen in a basically Republican state is shown in a breakdown of preferences expressed in the poll. Independents, a powerful force in California politics (and, in a close election, in most other states, too), voiced a preference of better than 2-to-1 for Mr. Dukakis over Mr. Bush, and twice as many Republicans said they were willing to defect to the governor as Democrats reported themselves ready to back the Vice President."

Dukakis lost independents 58-42 in the general, after winning them decisively in many Democratic primaries.

So your certainty that independents will continue to vote for Obama is not well-founded. He may defy history, but anyone remotely familiar with history should be able to grasp the fact that he can't base his candidacy on indepdents, blacks, and wealthy whites.

and Hillary can't base her candidacy on the base of the democratic party minus a large chunk of the black populace who will flock to McCain when he chooses Condi Rice as his VP. McCain will also pull in a large chunk of the hispanic vote. So this leaves Hillary with poor whites, and old women.

and please, Dukakis (it is not about ideology, it is about competence) had the same level of charisma as Hillary does. And you ignore the fact again that independents, after a quick Dole flameout, had no one else to go to but the Democratic party to have any choice.

Again you ignore history, once the multiple-state primaries such as Super Tuesday began, Bush's organizational strength and fundraising lead were impossible for the other candidates to match, and the nomination was his.

Needless to say, this dynamic was not evident for Independents up to super tuesday this time. In 1988 it was the Democratic contest that offered a meaningful choice, in 2008 both McCain and Obama were. Anybody who is even familiar with the term history would recognize something so elemental as this.

Hillary can't win the independents or swing voters, almost none have voted for her now. This can't be spun as to make a Hillary victory in November. She is a terrible candidate who turns off Democrats.

Like it or not, as a swing voter, I personally have voted for the winner of the popular vote in every election except 2004, and my candidate has won my state in every election. Obama over McCain and McCain over Hillary.

Now maybe Obama might lose if he wins the nomination, but Hillary is guaranteed to lose, her only shot is the gender card. I expect her to give birth during a debate with McCain, all the while promising to cure cancer.

Blackton --

No Democrat has won in recent years, or likely can win, without a large gender gap in his favor. That is, without more women than usual showing up and voting Democratic. So let's hope Obama isn't as dismissive of the "old women" as you and many of his other supporters are. Because he is going to need them to show up in large numbers.

I've never thought Clinton was going to win the nomination -- even with the advantage of her connection to a powerful male politician. Going from being the first "credible" female candidacy to the presidency is just too big a cultural leap to make in one try. But, she will end up, by having decisively shattered the historic limits of female presidential candidates, advancing the chance of some other woman doing it in the future (or, perhaps the chance of doing it herself in 2012 if Obama fails to win in November).

Given that, I don't believe how Obama performs against Clinton is a fair test of how he will perform in the general election against a more experienced, traditional, brand name male candidate. He has, in fact, never run ANY campaign against a traditional male candidate. Once Clinton is no longer on the ballot, he will look very different to many of those moderate Republicans and Republican leaning independents. To pull off a win he will have to run a very different campaign than the one he has run so far -- and he will have to hope that women and hispanics stick with him in large numbers.

esmense, hey, believe it or not I agree. I wanted it to be Gore-Obama for the ticket, but what can you do?

and as I said, Hillary's only hope is the gender card, that enough women republicans and independents will say f-it, I don't like Hillary but it is our turn, and she wins. Possible, yes, probably no, and if McCain takes Condi Rice (or another woman) a disaster for her, because it will split the f-it vote. But I don't see the same dynamic against Obama, only because Obama is more likeable.

As to the campaigns, Hillary has never run against anybody either. A no name congressman and next mayor of Yonkers weren't star power, she was also practically unopposed in the primaries, refusing to even debate against her little known opponent. Obama had to go up against some very powerful white Dems to win the Illinois Senate primary.

Obama is really the only Dem who does match up to McCain as sheer contrast. Young versus old, peace vs. war, future vs. past, hope vs. experience. charismatic vs. plodding, etc. the only similarities are both hold extraordinary biographies

Hillary vs. McCain, old vs. older, kinda war authorizing but not really vs. war, past vs. past, experience vs. more experience, Dem. attack machine vs. Republican attack machine, marry president as stepping stone to presidency vs. POW hero who devoted his life to America.

Yes, Obama can lose because I do worry about black vs. white. but I shall not surrender to that demon.

woman vs. man? eh, women have the numbers, would it be nice to have a woman president, sure, better though if her biography isn't closer to Eva Peron though, and is more like Angela Merkel, a woman who got where she is by herself.

Of course Obama is nothing like Dukakis. For one thing, Dukakis was actually reasonably competent and qualified, two words that have yet to be applied to Obama. I agree, of course, that he also had no personality.

WIth all that, though, he won the independent vote significantly and was well up in the polls based on his support with independents (this was in June, long after Dole had left the race). So what you think of as some phenomenal achievement of the Messiah was in fact effortlessly achieved by a dull, bland wannabe technocrat. And then he lost it. That, too, could happen to Obama. Remember, most people don't find him all that appealing, even though he sends a thrill right up Chris Mathews' leg. (In fact, fewer like him since that comment, I suspect).

"Hillary can't win the independents or swing voters, almost none have voted for her now."

Kerry had a very mixed record with independents in the primary. He usually lost them to Edwards or Wesley Clark (although he won them in California). Yet Kerry won independents in the general.

Is it starting to dawn on you that independent voting patterns in primaries and polls six months before elections aren't reliable indicators of outcomes?

I have no idea whether or not Hillary can win independent voters in the fall. I do know that she can win Democratic voters in primary votes, which Obama has rarely managed to do. I also know that she will, if anything, increase the gender gap that the Dems require to win.  So I can only assume that the Dem leadership won't be as determined to ignore reality as you are.

"I shall not surrender to that demon."

Yes, if whites flock to McCain instead of Obama it must be racism. It couldn't possibly be that they find him unqualified and incompetent.

To say nothing of the fact that if you really believe that he couldn't win because of what you perceive as "racism", then you're suicidally stupid to think he should run as the Dem nominee.

Again, I can't think the Dems will be as moronic.

kerr, you are wrong that Hillary can win Democratic voters in the fall, I know now countless Democrats who seethe when they hear her name. You are truly brain dead if you think people will vote for someone that they detest. I detest Hillary and will never vote for her. I also detested Mondale in 84 and voted for Reagan. In fact, I have been right in every election except 04 when I voted for Kerry, and he did win my state of Pa. I voted for Gore, but he did win the popular vote, and probably the actual one as well. I also voted for Kerry but did think Bush would win, so my instincts were right then. I am sorry that as a swing voter my instincts have been right, and nothing you say comes close to swaying me at all.

Hillary's only chance is the gender card, as she is a complete disgrace otherwise. Her campaign is a shambles, she burned through millions having to loan herself money, she has no consistent message, doesn't match up against McCain at all, and is pandering like mad on her agenda. She has, in fact, accomplished nothing herself in her life living off of Bill's reflected glory. She can't even beat a black man with the arabic name of Barack Hussein Obama in the midst of a war that was to topple a man with the name of Hussein and has a name that rhymes with Osama. Honestly she is so bad I doubt she could beat Genghis Bitler, and you think she can beat McCain.

If you must know I would be delighted if McCain wins, personally I love the guy and believe he is the only person who can get us out of Iraq (Nixon to China) if need be, or will stay in if is truly necessary (he won't throw away soldiers lives) part of me hopes Hillary wins the nomination so she can be crushed in the general, and Obama will be in a position to run in 2012 when the economy will be on an upswing again.

And if Obama loses against McCain, well that is fine too. McCain will be a thousand times better than Bush, and with a Dem congress might accomplish a good deal, so your take on my being suicidal is funny because I win either way.

And I never said whites will flock to McCain because of racism, what I worry about is enough whites will do so because of racism that Obama loses. Are you saying that is an impossibility? I don't think that is the case, but if it is and he loses his being nominee will have broken the barrier, which is good enough for me.

Finally, though I am American I don't live in the US and have been outside America for all of Bush's Presidency, and will be outside all of the next ones. This is just a game for me. Even if Hillary is as big a disaster being President as I think she will be, it won't affect me, so feel free to be as snide as you want. No matter what happens the beach will be just as nice for me.