the nyt poll suggests that its bad politics for either audience. It was like 21% of people thought she was doing this because she actually cares about people.  She should stop talking about this and talk about this:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

it's the only card left to play.

And yet, even as Hillary wins states like Pennsylvania, the supers are going to Obama. I don't really see how the argument can be made -- except if you're pccostello -- that advocating the same policy blunders as John McCain (on Iraq, on the gas tax) makes you more electable.

Agreed, she is working on the idea that the Obama ship is sinking.  I wonder if there is an anology in finance where traders disseminate bad info in hopes of having a run on a bank or some such thing.  The Clinton's are excellent propagandists.  

"He countered by asking, as the Clintonites often do, whether it would be "fair" to tell the Democrats who turned out in those primaries that their votes don't count. "

Excuse me, Harold.  They WERE told, moron.  If they didn't listen, then their morons too.  For that matter, what about the non-morons who didn 't vote because they took the DNC and the candidates (including Hillary) at their word when they said those votes would not count?  What do you say to them?  "Hah! We lied!"???

I don't know, Mike. Isn't Al Gore a superdelegate?

Next year will feature 3 policy debates (ok, 4 if you count the transportation reauthorization):

healthcare, global warming  (emissions trading + potential rev. neutral gas tax increase in the context of infrastructure repair), and Iraq

There's tons of support out there for a gasoline tax increase accompanied by a tax rebate. It would fund the infrastructure, and it would encourage higher fuel standards. The Democrats will have the votes to pass it, and many feel very strongly about it. This isn't radical stuff. Remember: Ronald Reagan increased the gasoline tax.

For Hillary Clinton to push this crap to (possibly) win a few votes is not going to impress anyone who wants to see the tax code restructured to reduce carbon emissions (see: nearly every Democrat in Congress plus tons of Republicans). The media is missing the environmental side of this debate. Mark Udall is a great example of an environmental champion who will probably win his Senate seat comfortably and has spoken out against this nonsense.

Democrats think that the environment is a winning issue for them in many states. Many Western Democrats have proven this. A bit of short term pandering by Hillary is not going to change their calculus on that issue.

PS: I also think that Democratic superdelegates will CONTINUE to understand the distinction between performance in primaries and performance in the general election - a distinction that seems to elude journalists and even professional vote counter John Judis.

Max,

You keep touting that map form one source, electoral-vote.com.  I have said before that is looks like a biased presentation that mixes a lot of data in a manner that makes it all too easy to manipulate.  For another take, I just looked at Rasmussen's view of the Electoral College.  Overall, it is much more favorable to the Dems, based on Rasmussen's own polling not suspect agglomerations.  It shows recent state by state results for 31 states.  Of those, 5, CO, IA, NM, OR, and WA, with a total of 39 EC votes, flip to the Dems if the candidate is Obama over Hillary and NC, worth 15, becomes a draw with Obama.  NONE of the recent polling results by Rasmussen shows a state flipping Hillary's way.  Of course, Rasmussen is only one pollster, not necessarily the best, and they caution that state by state numbers will be volatile for some time to come.  None-the-less, it is striking that in 31 states, all the pickups go in Obama's direction.

I think maybe the DNC has better data than your favorite website.  That may have something to do with the continual move of supers toward Obama.  Basically, the argument that Hillary is more electable looks like a loser unless she can make Obama unelectable which is what she is trying to do.  But that can't be taken very far because, after a point, the DNC and the supers are not likely to take it kindly that Hillary is impairing the November prospects of the nominee.

The whole Michigan/Florida thing is the worst of the Clintons Gambits.  Everything else seems to be, regrettably, lame politics but this is basically trying to cheat to win.  How the press lets them get away with this blatant effort to steal the nomination is amazing.  There is no justifiable reason whatsoever that the results of those two races should stand.  If she gets it through the DNC rules commitee it'll be almost as big a coup as the Supreme Court Decision in the 2000 election.

Hillary pandering to the lower orders is not playing well with 'elite" superdelegates. She's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. I'm torn between admiring her pluck and being revolted by her Machiavellianism.

it doesn't matter whether its true or not.  she should be using it to make a decent argument instead of making tactically stupid arguments about gas taxes.  I'm not saying the site is in anyway accurate, just that its a better arguing position than the one she's currently taking.  Voters are much more sophisticated than in the past and are thinking about who is more electable etc. and are seeing through obvious pandering.  I like Obama, and I hope you're right about these other polls being better.  It's certainly not my favorite website.

BTW I just looked at the Rasmussen stuff your talking about and their chart isn't updated in some states where new polls indicate that Clinton is doing much better than Obama, like in Florida for example.

Yes, max, but does FL become a Hillary win?  Not likely.  If you look at the numbers of "where Obama does better," he does much better, but in many cases it makes no difference.  For example, he does much better than Hillary in TX, but not enough to win it.  The issue is which states flip for one or the other.  By that metric, the only one that could matter in the real world, Hillary does not seem to have a case to make.  But there will be more numbers to look at by and by.

Rasmussen's numbers are just Rasmussen's polls.  It is well worth looking at other state by state results, but when you start to blend them, you get into trouble, which is what is wrong with the website you linked.  The right way to do this is to take each pollster's results and ask which way the delegate count shifts, than compare the shifts, not average the grosses, from one pollster to the next.  If there is a strong claim by one or another to being more electable, you should see that across several polls one gets more net flips than the other.  If the results are mixed, then there is no strong argument on behalf of either, at least in terms of electability based on the Electoral College.   Then you have to start looking at other things, such as Hillary's sky-high unfavorability ratings, something that normally spells doom.

Re the PS. There is a tendency for political commentators to treat the voting public as a single entity allowing for great generalisation about the direction of any society. Great shorthand but the reality is that the voting public is made up of individuals each with there own agenda. There is a danger with the shorthand and for Florida it assumes that this single entity voting knew and consensually broke the rules when it voted early and therefore needs to be punished. Was it the voters or the state officials who made the decision to poll early and what would an individual voter do, even if they knew the rules have been broken, not vote? The second danger of the shorthand is that it assumes that this single entity the voting public is rational and will accept the decision philosophically where as enough individuals may take offence to cost the state. As the a European observer it not my affair but the verbal gymnastics on this matter do deserve comment.