CrimsonTom

I'll be happy to tell you how she'd win:

CA, OR, WA, HI, NY, NJ, MA, MD, ME, NH, VT, CT, DE, MD, AR, FL, OH, PA, RI, MN, IL, WI, MI and DC. 306-232. And that's downplaying Latino support for Clinton in CO or NV (with its huge elderly population).

Obama loses OH, FL, and AR, and picks up IA, KS and--big if--VA, and we still get it, 282 - 256.

I'd be happy either way, but I'd prefer we not need two states that have gone red for the last four Presidential elections to act as "swing states." posted 03/29/2008 at 12:38:59

The "left" hates the spectre of Scalia and Roberts far more than they could ever hate HRC. They'd come around. posted 03/29/2008 at 12:15:50

Okay, this is pretty specific. Senator Obama is leading in the campaign for the Democratic nomination due to a misguided scheme by the DNC to allow disproportionate representation by states that will never vote for a Democrat for President of the United States.

Idaho, for example--and if you think it might throw it's Electoral College votes to a Democrat, you need medical treatment--received 18 pledged delegates to the convention. 21,000 Democrats voted in the Idaho primary, i.e., each Idahoan delegate only required 1167 voters. To snag a California pledged delegate, however, required the support of 13,695 Californians.

What makes a Democrat in Idaho 10x more powerful than one in California? It's not aiding in the general election, that's for sure.

As to votes garnered by the two candidates to date--27,795,741--Obama leads by a margin of 50.1% to 49.9%. 109k people is a lot, sure, but if you take the difference between the candidates is states neither has a hope in hell of winning in November, Clinton is ahead by 100k+ voters:

Obama: AL, AK, ID, MS, NE, ND, SC, UT, WY. Clinton: AZ, OK, TX. And that's giving Obama a shot in GA and KS, which few believe is realistic. Put those two in and HRC is up by 500k.

In short, our party is allowing the citizens of states that will not cast Democratic electoral votes in November to choose our nominee. This might appear "democratic" but it is unrealistically stupid. posted 03/29/2008 at 12:14:35

Bill Clinton knows a little more about electability than any Democrat in the last 60 years. posted 03/29/2008 at 10:18:29

Minnesota is not a swing state. They have voted for the Dem in every Presidential election since 1980. It's more reliably Dem than New York.

Stop. Just stop. posted 03/29/2008 at 10:13:00