Not only will PA not get her out of the delegate hole, the hole will be bigger by then. Between today and PA nearly all of the states heavily favor Obama, so I'd expect him to net quite a few delegates in the interim. She'd have to win pretty big in PA to even break even, post today.

Michael, you make the mistake of assuming that Hillary needs persuasive arguments to counter such petty concerns as "math" or "reality." Hillary can keep running as long as she can raise money, and she's shown that her ability to raise money is unrelated to her ability to win nominating elections. Why stop now?

People make a significant mistake in assuming that Hillary represents a restoration of the 1990s Clinton machine. In fact, she represents an importation into Democratic politics of the 2000s Bush machine. And the first lesson of the Bush machine is that you can, in fact, lose your way to the White House -- as long as you're willing to commit mutual suicide and the other side isn't. To Hillary, her willingness to destroy the Democratic Party if that's what it takes to win demonstrates her superiority as a candidate.

And Rush Limbaugh wants her to stay in too.

With Coulter and Limbaugh endorsing her, how could she lose in November? Then a

Oh, please. She has the data that more *Democrats* have voted for her, she has the fact that she's won all the critical states, and the larger blue states.

She can point to the fact that Democrats want her to stay in the race, and what does *that* mean about Obama, that his own party doesn't want his opponent to quit?

If she wins three of the four races, he's the one in trouble. Pledged delegates don't matter. The only question is whether it's going to the convention (where Hillary probably wins) or Obama agrees that if he can't win Pennsylvania, he'll drop out.

Rhubarbs: You have made explicit here an argument I have been trying to articulate in order to understand Clinton '08.  I think you've nailed it.

jmkerr, did I miss the part of the primary where Hillary started winning?  Why would Obama drop out if he doesn't win Pennsylvania?  It's not like he's lost, you know, eleven straight contests.

And this "Democratic voters prefer Hillary" trope is hilariously wrong-headed, unless Hillary thinks she can win without swing voters and independents.  As for the argument that she's won all the large blue states, that really only matters if you can convince us that Obama has any chance of losing them in November.

kerr, you are an insufferable assclown, who will distort numbers to fit your love affair with Hillary. You are one of the reasons my hatred of Hillary grows whenever you post, your arrogance, you refusal to acknowledge anything but you own distortions makes you our new thompsondavid.

Hillary can't win with a majority of the Democrats, nor can she win if she only wins the states she have won this primary season. I acknowledge Obama might lose, but you are incapable of acknowledging Hillarys countless faults.

More than anyone, you really have hurt Hillary here at TNR. pccostello at least has the charm of being a twit.

Seriously, though. There's been a mood shift against Obama lately. Ohio seemed plausible for him a couple of days ago. Now it doesn't. What worked? Was it just Canada? Rezko? Were her complaints about press fawning effective? I don't understand it.

Gosh, whatever happened thompsondavid?  I've been regularly attending Economics 101 for the day when he returns.  Forgotten and not missed, however, is smacheachern.  ndmackenzie is now a lonely voice in the wilderness.

What is working for Hillary is a series of attack ads.  Politicians don't use negative ads and attacks just for the fun of it.  They use them because they work.  This is the dilemma of Obama's campaign.  Because he has preached an end to open partisan warfare, he cannot respond directly in kind, although there is plenty to respond with.  He can find counters, and had better get on it.  The just have to be lighter in tone.

Admittedly, Obama has had a rougher couple of days than usual. I think the biggest thing working against him is that no one seems yet to want to pull the trigger on Hillary.

But let's not get too dispirited. Let's remember that despite a few day's resurgence, Hillary has still run an appalling campaign, she still has high negatives, she hired bad people who charged her obscene amounts of money (and who are now publicly sniping at one another trying to escape blame), she let her surrogates run around the country making dumb ass, false statements about her opponent, she had no game plan in place for after Super Tuesday, she's played the sympathy card repeatedly, she's fudged her answers on issues at debates, she hasn't released her tax returns, she hasn't answered a single question about her husband's problematic dealings with a Kazahk businessman and she blew through a war chest of $150 million and is still fighting for her political survival.

Call me crazy, but I just can't believe that voters are going to look at this record and conclude that Hillary is a competent, experienced manager who's ready on Day One.

epic, it feels like a market correction to me.  I think many people who have seemed pro-Obama were swayed less by a sense of his qualifications, electability or what have you. and more by a sense of being part of a movement.  (Let me be clear that I am not including the pro-Obama folks around here, among whom I count myself.)  All that it takes to shake fair-weather friends is a little bad publicity, even if it's about something as inane as the Canada brouhaha (and have a mentioned that I still can't figure out what the hell the fuss is all about?) or a skit on SNL.  

I don't believe there has been a shift among voters as there has certainly been in the main stream press.  The string of negative Obama stories are presented by the group that has the most to gain from the fight going on and on.  They've made a tremendous amount of money off of this ongoing primary season.  

Let us remember one fact...Obama has repeatedly out performed the polls.  

There is little reason to think that he won't again.

The nominating convention is not an election where a one vote margin can decide the contest. The DNC rules deliberately gave a large role to superdelegates.

Neither Obama nor Clinton can get to the nomination on pledged delegates. If Obama again loses in the big states today, after outspending Clinton on ads and staff by as much as 4 to 1, then his credibility as the real frontrunner and as a credible candidate will be severely damaged no matter how many delegates he has picked up in a series of sparsely attended caucuses.

At that point, the logic and momentum of the convention and nominating process wil shift dramatically.

Basically, Obama has gamed the system through activists at caucuses. He has failed to win any large state except his own. Hillary has won California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Florida. If she wins Ohio and Texas, I think it over for Obama.

Thanks for the answers. BHL, I hope you're right. DrDan, I hope the market doesn't overcorrect!

pccostello, it really would save time if you'd just provide a link to Hillary's talking points of the day.

But on the merits, these "large state" and "rigged caucus" tropes are bunk. I'd be embarrassed to hear any candidate I support make such patently ridiculous arguments. Assume Hillary wins Ohio. That will represent the only "large state" that Hillary will have won that any Democrat would not be exceedingly likely to win in November also. California and New York will not decide the next election. States like Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Virginia will decide the next election. And the plain fact is that Obama has whupped Hillary by huge margins in almost all of this year's likely "swing states."

And on the question of "gaming the system", again the facts are that until January 2008, caucuses were assumed to favor candidates like Hillary. The reason you have caucuses is precisely because you want party insiders, older voters, organized interest groups like unions, and, if you're a Democrat, older white women to play a disproportionate role in choosing your nominee. The point of a caucus is that the difficulty of participating favors your party's most active core constituencies over newcomers and independents. For Hillaristas now to claim that somehow this system, which has been maintained precisely because it is biased in favor of candidates like Hillary, is somehow unfair to their candidate is insulting.

Anyway, from Hillaristas: How about less whining about the unfair process, and more positive arguments for why Democrats should nominate someone who backed President Bush on Iraq, Iran, and punitive bankruptcy, and who's taken more cash from the anti-reform health insurance industry than any other candidate in history? Less spin, more persuasion on the merits!

"you are an insufferable assclown, who will distort numbers to fit your love affair with Hillary."

Tsk, tsk. I thought Obambabots were all about civility?

I haven't even decided if I'd vote for Hillary over McCain. I just find it stunning that so many presumably sane people are gulping Koolaid with such fervor and apparent enjoyment.

"More than anyone, you really have hurt Hillary here at TNR. "

Wow, amazing that you'd make me such a powerhouse. I've made quite an impression on you, apparently--and in your view, the rest of this forum. You really should hold in your rage, puppy. Don't cede the enemy so much power.

As I've said before (and as you clearly remember, as you can't seem to forget me), I'm not trying to persuade anyone here. I'm just pointing out reality. The idea that TNR--Obamabot Central--could operate as a sphere of influence for Hillary support is a joke.

If I were worried about influence, I'd be much more chuffed by the fact that the Clinton team appears to be using my exit poll analysis, and at the very least, people at all the blogs know about it and refer to it (either in support or disdain).

In contrast, you're a mommy hen clucking, and I can't even remember if we've spoken before.

So if you want me to register--much less care about--your disapproval, you should start by expressing a memorable opinion. Thus far, alas, you're indistinguishable from all the other hacks--and whatever you want to say about me, I've escaped that fate.

The Obama honeymoon is over.  I blame the press, and the hopeless!

Blackton, re:  ass clown.

Seriously?  What are you seven? Besdies, assclown is one of the great overused words in the blogosphere. Neither clever nor original. I say go back to your mom's basement, blast some more Korn and eat another box of Ho-Hos.Obama's hoping you vote for McCain.

Well, Peter, at least "assclown" is clear. I have no idea what you were trying to say to Blackton.

Obama hopes he votes for McCain? Huh?

rhu,

obama got as many delegates for "winning" idaho as hillary did for winning new jersey. it makes no sense, even if you can't bring yourself to admit it.

jmkerr has never answered the question as to why he believes that Clinton has a better chance of winning in November against McCain.  Until he does that, his expostulations remain a lot of wind and piss, as the Brits used to say.

Assuming that most democrats badly want the White House back, it's certainly conceivable but a little curious to imagine that they will stream in droves to McCain or stay at home if Obama is the nominee.  Why would they do that?  Even if race is a factor in some cases, is it reasonable to believe that race will be decisive (because I don't believe that Limbaugh thinks that if he wants people to vote for Clinton).

I think the Democratic desire to win functionas the other way around also:  were Hillary to win the nomination in some reasonable and legitimate way (e.g. she wins really big today), the Obama vote would go to her.  No question.  So (1) this isn't 1980 and there are very few "Reagan Democrats" around who will do John McCain the favor they did Reagan, and (2) Obama supporters have no interest in destroying the party.

The big question is the increasing number of independents in elections in this country.  The next biggest question is to what degree a Clinton candidacy will bring out the conservative vote that might just be still unenthused about McCain in November.

To consider those two questions honestly and thoroughly leads to the recognition, I believe, that Clinton's chances in November are slim -- and even slimmer if she is perceived to have strong-armed the nomination.  To that extent, Clinton cannot "lose her way" to the White House (although Rhubarb's analysis is brilliant otherwise) because there isn't a non-Democratic majority out there for her to pick up.  There is for Obama.

"Basically, Obama has gamed the system through activists at caucuses."

pc, cut the crap! Nobody has "gamed the system." The DNC made up the rules - blame Howard Dean if you want to. Obama *has* run a smarter campaign...far smarter than Clinton's to date.

Now, Clinton has decided to take the low.- pardon me, "traditional"- road to winning primaries and influencing people. Credit is due of course that she waited this long to turn discordant; probably she didn't want to if she could win on a positive, harmonious note. But that's politics, you do what you have to to win, or you probably shouldn't have run in the first place. This goes equally for Obama, btw.

"He has failed to win any large state except his own. Hillary has won California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Florida. If she wins Ohio and Texas, I think it over for Obama."

But, if Obama continues to play a smarter *game* he may yet win, and your virtual math will wind up in the trash can, your dreams and screams as well.  

Though I'm an Obamaton (I actually like the nickname, for some perverse reason), if Clinton can shove and elbow her way to the nomination, more power to her. she'll deserve it.

For those who worry about Obama's chances after today, fret not. If he's half as good a political animal as he seems to be, he'll still be alive and tougher for it if loses today. He really needs to be tested by fire so he doesn't flame out in the general. The Repubs won't give him a cubic nanometer of breathing room, only all fire all the time.

Great analysis, irony.  I agree whole-heartedly.

irony,

You speaketh reasonably. But I don't quite align with your conclusion   "2) Obama supporters have no interest in destroying the party." While they may not be interested in destroying the party, many would also probably not care to save it if Clinton captures the nomination. I wouldn't and I  don't.

"jmkerr has never answered the question as to why he believes that Clinton has a better chance of winning in November against McCain. "

Sure I have. Conventional wisdom, which is really stupid to ignore:

1. Democrats have lost the white vote in all but one of the last 13 elections. Putting up the candidate who lost the white Dem vote by almost 2:1 is taking the risk of losing more than usual.

2. Hispanics are far more likely to swing vote than blacks, particularly when the candidate is McCain.

3. Independent primary voting behavior can't be generalized to November.

4. Polls about head to head matchups mean nothing this far out (or, frankly, ever).

5. Liberal candidates do far worse in presidential campaigns than moderates. The idea that swing states are going to go for a liberal who wants to repeal DOMA, give illegals driver's licenses, gets the blessing of Lousi Farrakhan (regardless of whether he rejected or denounced) and strengthen affirmative action in  favor of McCain is, to say the least, risky.

The fundamental question is this: are white and Hispanic Democrats more likely to vote for moderate McCain over liberal Obama than blacks and liberals are to vote for McCain over Clinton?

To answer that question, you have to get your head out of the echo chamber and go look at the exit polls and history. Both of which say otherwise.

Thanks drdannyu -- OTOH I could be wrong.  Or we could be wrong (hey, you agreed with me!)

One think I'm not wrong about, however, is when I scratch my head in puzzlement about this peculiar situation we find ourselves in.

We have two of the best candidates on the Democratic side, and we had a couple of other good options too, and yet the feeling is increasingly bitter.

The Republicans, however, are stuck with a problematic candidate a great many of them didn't want, and the party started off in fall -- as Bob Herbert noted in his op-ed on Sunday -- on the wrong side of a whole range of issues from the American people.  But they are feeling a rush of optimism now.

The better organized party with the opportunities is not doing as well at the moment as the party that is idelogically falling asunder.

I don't begrudge a little "wake and bake" but you HRC people need to sober up and look at the numbers for a minute. It would take an act of God to save her bacon after dropping 11 in a row. Today might be enough to keep her cash flow coming in, but it just delays the inevitable.

jmkerr, by the way, when you talk only about gulping kool-aid to us, it isn't exactly taking the high-ground to complain about civility.  

irony, I share your sense of bewilderment.  I think having a primary season that lasts for a year produces the kind of fatigue we're witnessing/feeling.  I think people on both sides of the divide are ready to rally behind one candidate, and are angry that they have to direct their attentions to campaigning against other Democrats, when they want to move on and take after McCain.  It's a collective sense of "Why the hell doesn't (other candidate) just bow out now, for the good of the party so (my candidate) can start the business of defeating McCain?"  But I feel genuinely confident that, once the dust has settled, the hackles have been lowered, and hard feelings have been soothed, that this will still be a good year.  As you say, McCain is a tremendously problematic candidate for a large portion of the GOP base, and both Clinton and Obama are running rings around him, both in terms of fund-raising and voter turnout in just about every single race to date.

I want to primary season to be over so we can regain our focus.

yes peter, I am seven years old. At least according to Hillary Clinton and jmkerr. Anyone who doesn't like Hillary Clinton is too be mocked relentlessly and never engaged. As I have said countless times before I like McCain and will be happy if he wins, I don't want to see the Democrats lose congress, which is likely with Hillary dragging the party down.

kerr, of course, sees reality in such a way that Hillary hatred doesn't exist, that somehow Hillary is just a generic Democrat. She is probably the most hated woman in America today, and if she wins the nod by destroying Obama will be the most hated woman in American history. Unlike drdannyu above I have voted with the winner in every Presidential election but 04. (I voted for Gore, but he did for all intents and purposes win). I would never vote for Hillary. Her coalition of the elderly, radical feminists, and portion of the hispanic vote is a loser.

maybe both Obama and Clinton are destined to lose. but that doesn't mean they have to run an extremely divisive and mocking campaign (whoops, that is just Hillary).

A year ago I thought Hillary had a chance, now it should be obvious to anyone against McCain it will be slim to none.

drdannyu, have you ever seen a Democratic campaign this bitter and divisive before? The Democrats should hold their primary season beginning in April through June, so it will be over quickly, now we have been spending months stabbing each other.

You are seriously understimating McCain. The electoral college favors Republicans automatically so whole sections of the country can be written off for Democrats. And McCain sponsor of McCain Kennedy should do fine with hispanics, regardless the south and southwest belong to him.

As to the moneyed interests, they will back McCain, and with Democrats bleeding money should do fine to match them.

blackton, you come down hard on Hillary but I agree Clinton's chances against McCain will be vanishingly small. Unless he dies of course, or something as dramatic.

tomeg, yeah I am like drdannyu, I am just beat from this campaign. TNR breathlessly reporting and mocking the ever mockable Mark Penn doesn't help either. If I didn't read TNR I wouldn't know about 80% of what I find objectionable about Hillary. Hillary's campaign is like making sausage, something nobody wants to see the process of.

jmkerr:  sorry I didn't see your response earlier.  That said, however, I find it a little weird.  I said that you had failed to give any basis for your claim that Clinton would have a better chance of beating McCain in November than Obama would.  You then proceed to post in response what appear to be a series of reasons why McCain will win even if his opponent is Clinton.  In particular, I have the impression that you often seem to be thinking "Clinton" even if you are talking about Obama.  Clinton is not seen as "moderate" and is the greatest potential organizing tool the Republicans have.  The only area in which Clinton can really be said to have an edge is that she appears to be crustier on f-p and national security issues, but then she's blocked on that as McCain will always beat her there.

I remain unconvinced that you are even completely convinced yourself of what you say.  Given the commitment of the party bases (assuming conservatives come out for McCain) the independents are the key (I mean, come on!!), and even though one can't guarantee that they'll draw toward Obama, one can say with reasonable certainty that they won't be coming out for Clinton.  Against McCain, Hillary will lose.  Against McCain, Obama will have a fierce fight, but he has some excellent chances that Clinton simply doesn't own.

I'm a freak - I like the long primary season (20 debates is even fine with me) and think it's very important. Otherwise the candidate with the most name recognition wins by default.  Selecting a qualified nominee should be much more demanding than that, both of the candidates and the voters.  Voters can kind of dip and and I this way.  Some fatigue seems like a small price to pay for a richer process.

It's fascinating that so many people seem to have forgotten in the middle of this thing that the Clintons are professional politicians. This is what they do for a living and it is only the publicity and the controversy that they self generate which creates their incremental earnings potential.

Right now, they run a 200,000,000 business that creates no product and delivers no service to anyone except, yes, you guessed it, the Clintons. The friends of bill who are also gleaning millions out of that pot are all simply part of the game. What would they do if this  operation folded  now? Go back to their regular jobs? No, they will not voluntarily put an end to this game. The future earnings potential from a second stint in the big house and as the first inverse job occupants is practically unfathomable. No, this is not simply another chapter in the unending game that they play, this is the big one. The game that they have been working their way up to for 35 years. The real deal. The thing that they actually have the experience for.

If this is not news to you,  then let it be a reminder that you can do something to stop it. Vote Different.

If you are a Clinton voter, open up your wallet nice and wide because bubba is everywhere  and he deserves your dollars.

blackton, I think McCain is more damaged than you do.  Assume that this race is VERY close.  Now, take into account that voices as diverse as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Rick Santorum and Grand Mufti James Dobson have all expressed grave reservations (with Dobson saying he refuses to vote for McCain) and figure their cadre of slavering followers must account for a percentage point or two, and you've got a squeaker of a win....but a win, nonetheless.

2736298:

Yes, you've touched on one of the critical reasons I don't want Clinton, warmed up or not.

btw, intrigued by your all-numerical i.d., I took the trouble of adding the digits left to right, which yielded a result  of 37, which, when added together is 10 or 1. I don't know whether you were aware of this, but it's as much as my numerical analytical ability can manage today. Thank G-d we have spreadsheets. Thank G-d more there are those who can interpret them, eh?

oh well, she'll only run once (he twice), so let them get all the gusto they want. . .

Here's a thought I haven't heard expressed yet by anyone.  Why is it that Hillary is so ungracious in her speeches after each primary/caucus?  Every other candidate always congratulates their opponent if their opponent wins a victory.  Tonight Hillary, as she has done every single time, failed to congratulate Obama on his victory in Vermont tonight.  I think this is something worth  discussing.  It's like she and her entire campaign refuses to face and address bad news. I think this is in keeping with the general tenor of her campaigning which is to never plan for or face up to unwelcome developments.  Just ignore a problem and pretend it is not there and all will be well.  I also think it is just rude!

Math, math, math.  How about this for math: it is absolutely impossible for EITHER candidate to reach the majority of delegates that they need to win on the first ballot based solely on all the caucuses and primaries still to be held.  That means it comes down to super delegates, both for Hillary AND for Obama.  

Let's look at the 12 largest states by Electoral Votes, which I score 7 to 3 for Clinton, with 2 TBD, and she won all four of the largest states:

California - 55 - won by Clinton – 52% to 42%

Texas - 34 - won by Clinton – 51% to 47%

New York - 31 - won by Clinton – 57% to 40%

Florida - 27 - won by Clinton (albeit with no delegates at stake) – 50% to 33%

Illinois - 21 - won by Obama 65% to 33%

Pennsylvania - 21 - TBD

Ohio - 20 - won by Clinton

Michigan - 17 - won by Clinton (albeit with no delegates at stake) – 55% to 40% for Uncommitted

Georgia - 15 – won by Obama 66% to 31%

New Jersey – 15 – won by Clinton 54% to 44%

North Carolina – 15 – TBD

Anybody in Clinton's position would be a fool to drop out now.  

For what it's worth, it bugs me when people talk about the "BIG" states.  The way a few of the people on CNN were throwing these stats around would make it seem like the people who live in the small states don't count saying stuff like "well Obama is ahead, but Hillary should win because she took all the big states".   Maybe Obama should just drop out now - I mean he's only leading by 80 or 90 delegates but he's losing in all the states that matter.

I'm not saying that Obama should apologize for his current delegate lead, or that he should drop out.  But right now there is a full court press on saying that Clinton cannot possibly catch Obama's lead in delegate count by the end of the primary season (probably true).  The point is: so what?  You get the nomination by having a simple majority of all delegates, not a plurality.  There is no conceivable way that either Clinton or Obama will have a majority by the end of the primary season (unless the uncommitted super delegates all start announcing for one candidate or the other).

So telling either candidate that they should drop out is ludicrous.

buffaloboy:

What you said.

I agree with buffaloboy. For as long as neither candidate has captured the number of delegates required to clinch the nomination, both have a perfectly adequate reason to stay in the race. And, as of this writing, Clinton has captured Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Thus, though it remains rather dubious how much these late victories can aid her in closing the gap, it is rather hard to argue that she should bow out while there clearly still is some wind in her sails. Plus, I have always believed that one of the biggest vulnerabilities of the way the primaries are structured lies in the fact that later states are virtually deprived of having a say in who wins the nomination. This year, the Texas and Ohio vote has mattered, as will votes of the states who probably cannot remember the last time they had any consequential say in the outcome of a primary. Why take that away from them? It seems rather democratic that they should for once matter just as much as Iowa and New Hampshire.

I also happen to think that those charging Hillary with giving undue advantage to a Republican candidate by overstaying in the race are wrong. Democrats might not have as much time to rally around their final candidate - however, at the same time, the Republican smear machine will have less time attempting to politically assassinate the ultimate primary winner because they will not have one to go after. So the situation really works both ways and is not without some advantages.

Let's stir the pot some more.  How about some funny math involving Electoral votes?

I awarded each state that has decided so far to either Obama or Clinton, and whoever wins the state, even if by 1 vote, gets all that state's Electoral Votes.  (This shows you the value of winning big states instead of small states.  It's also how things will be done in the General Election).  I also gave Florida and Michigan to Clinton, since at the moment she can at least argue she carried over 50% of the votes cast in Michigan (beating everybody else combined) and Florida.  

The result:

Clinton: 263 (219 if you subtract Michigan and Florida)

Obama: 193

In this scenario, if Clinton keeps Michigan and Florida and carries Pennsylvania, she's in the White House.  Obama pretty much has to run the table.

Alternatively, we all know George W Bush in 2000 is the only person ever elected without carrying either of the two most populous states in terms of Electoral Votes (California and New York at the time).  How likely are you to get elected if you don't carry any of the top four (California, Texas, New York and Florida all breaking for Clinton).

Again, I'm not arguing Obama is cooked - but Clinton has some strong arguments in her favor too.

If you want to check my math (all my data comes from MSNBC)

I awarded these 16 states to Clinton:

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas

I awarded these 25 states to Obama:

Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin

These states are TBD:

Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming

Whichever Dem can carry hispanics in the southwest by a wide margin in the GE will have the best shot at defeating McCain. OTOH if he carries CO, NM, AZ, NV and makes a run for CA as well, we're going to be in trouble.

Obama really, really needs to up his game now with hispanics esp, also with meat-and-potatoes economics-focused low to moderate-income whites. If he can't carry CO, OH, and FL and if he's also forced to burn cycles defending CA, I don't see how he can pull it out. The Kidz Crusade always disappoints (hint: their numbers are smaller AND their participation is about half that of older voters).