Clinton beats McCain by 11 in New Jersey, Obama loses by 2

[jackson_dem]

New Jersey has the ninth most electoral votes.

H 50, Mc 39
Mc 45, O 43

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_rasmussen_new_jersey_1.php

Clinton does 16 points better with women than Obama and McCain wins 25% of the Democratic vote against Obama (you remember Democrats, right?). This is consistent with other polling that shows Obama bleeding more Democratic support than Clinton. He usually offsets it with "independents". Trading 10% among Democrats for 10% of independents is an unequal trade since the former is far more likely to go Democratic on election day.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

1. New Jersey counts!

[Alhena]

2. There are many more states (e.g. CO, NV, NH, IA) where the opposite is true

[jackson_dem]

4. Let's do the electoral math

New Jersey has 15 electoral votes, Florida has 27, Pennsylvania 21, and Ohio 20. Iowa has 7, New Hampshire 4, Nevada 5, and Colorado 9.

[Alhena]

12. The PA and OH general election poll numbers were almost identical

for Hillary and Obama in the polls I saw.

Look, you can post about it all you want but the fact is that Hillary needs the political comeback of the century to be the nominee.

[jackson_dem]

16. Which says it all

One candidate has been attacking for 16 years by the corporate media and the rethugs. The other is pristine. Yet they run even (Hill slightly better). It is very "hopeful" to think Obama will remain as strong as he is now, when he is pristine and untouched by the msm and rethugs, after the rethug machine and msm spent months attacking him 24/7 until November.

[jackson_dem]

14. Oh yeah, Massachussets is another state where Hill does better. 13 electoral votes

Are we to pin our "hopes" on Obama winning ultra-red states like Utah, Idaho, and small swing states like Iowa and New Hampshire and cede Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), New Jersey (15), Massachusetts (13), and according to SUSA even California (55)?

[Gore1FL]

17. Wait a minute...

You think McCain is going to carry MA??

[jackson_dem]

28. Against Obama he is down only 2, against Hill he is down 52-43

Although in the end it is hard to see any Dem losing Mass. but having to spend valuable resources defending Mass. would be a huge blow to our chances. We need to go on the offense, not play defense. Obama does worst in big states and may surrender some major blue states to McCain.

[Gore1FL]

41. A win is a win

And those numbers will get better after the convention-- for either candidate.

[jackson_dem]

54. 2 is within the margin of error

A win can be more than meets the eye. Gore quit on Ohio and lost it by only 4 points after surging late. Had he used his resources wisely Florida would have never mattered. Anyone who thinks we will be in a strong position if we are spending money trying to protect arguably the most Democratic state against McCain is fooling themselves. Even if the poll is spot on and he wins by 2 a win is not a win. That win comes at the expense of losing ground in other states. We shouldn't be trying to protect Kerry states but going after swing states that Bush won like Florida and Ohio.

[Gore1FL]

56. It's MA

They have gone red ONCE in my lifetime, and I am in my 40s. They aren't about to go McCain crazy in a General election.

[jackson_dem]

66. They voted for McCain type rethugs as governors

It isn't so much whether we will lose MA, it is unlikely but possible with Obama against McCain. It is the damage having to spend resources there would do to us elsewhere.

[Gore1FL]

76. Romney ran as someone left of Kennedy

McCain is attempting to run to the right. MA is solidly blue.

Do you have any valid reasons for supporting Hillary? Many exist. You are presenting none.

[appletasty]

58. Those polls are old. the NJ poll is recent

In CO, NV, NH, etc., Obama may not be as strong as he was at the time those polls were taken.

[Skip Intro]

3. Ah, we don't need NJ, or FL, or MI. We're going to win Utah!

:sarcasm:

[jackson_dem]

10. If Obama is the nominee and disenfranchises Michigan he is done there

I haven't seen a poll for Michigan but given the polls in the other big swing states and the fact many Democrats who were disenfranchised in the primary will sit out the general, or leave the presidential line blank, it is hard to see Obama outperforming Hillary in Michigan either. Michigan has 17 electoral votes (8th)...

[Skip Intro]

19. FL and MI Dems have no reason to support the party if the party doesn't respect them now.

It is so simple.

[CatnHat]

70. I agree

FL and MI democrats got kicked in the ass by the democratic party. if the situation was reversed, the Obama crowd would be ranting and raving. Guess they only think it's bad, when it affects "their" candidate. Speaking of support, many Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama, I was amazed not only in this forum, but others I have visited. They are pissed. . . justifiably so. So many some of you Obama people might just want re-think your hatred of Clinton, and her supporters. If your candidate wins the nomination, I really couldn't stomach all the "kissing up" the Obama people will have to do. That's even more pathetic than what's being spewed by the Obama crowd now. It won't work for many. So keep Clinton's numbers in your assessment while you're at it. Many have already made up their minds. Be as vile and arrogant as you want, it is time for change, right into the independent party.

[Gore1FL]

20. Obama disenfranchised MI?

I thought Michigan did that.

[jackson_dem]

29. He may at the convention. Let's "hope" 600,000 voters are not disenfranchised

Michigan did nothing wrong. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't entitled to hijack the process each year.

[Gore1FL]

47. They agreed to the rules before it all started.

I am not sure that changing the rules after the fact is any better than Florida 2000.

I happen to agree that the rules are stupid. I think a lot of laws are stupid. If I break them, no matter how stupid they are, I deal with the consequences.

It really won't matter much anyways. The Clinton vs Obama gains in those two states doesn;t close the gap.

Approx 86 Clinton to 62 "other" for a +24 count in MI
Approx 110 Clinton to 70 for Obama a +40 count in FL

Including super delegates, that still puts her 46 behind Obama INCLUDING her current advantage in committed super delegates

Nonetheless. If FL and MI don't count, it isn't Obama's fault, and it is silly to blame party rules that ALL Democratic candidates agreed to on him. Additionally, If M and FL voters find it in their best interests to make a statement rather than vote in their own interests, they are just being stupid. Finally, the latest polls show MI leaning Democratic, regardless.

There are valid reasons to support Obama, or Clinton. This line of logic does not fit either category.

[davidinalameda]

45. you're bringing up Michigan again?

it was the Michigan party leaders who decided to hold their primary before the specified time decided by the DNC

it wasn't Obama

it wasn't Dean or anyone else

it was the decision of the Michigan party leaders

it's very simple-why can't people understand it

[jackson_dem]

46. Tell that to the 600,000 Democrats who voted in that state

How do we win without them? We don't. Lose them and lose the 8th largest state. Where does Obama make up those 17 electoral votes?

[Gore1FL]

49. Can you documnent that they won't vote in the general?

Please provide a link to the credible study you are referencing.

[jackson_dem]

52. Gore1FL who close was Gore's Michigan win? Kerry's was even closer

Let's use some common sense. If you disenfranchise people some of them will say fuck you in the general. If even 15% of that 600,000 do that is 90,000 votes. You want to start Michigan down a bunch of votes simply because one candidate opted to fight for disenfranchising it at the convention? The Obama fairy tale is based on a series of "hopes". If it like a deck of cards. let's "hope" they all stay in place..

[Gore1FL]

57. What one candidate did that?

I counted 8 who agreed before it started.

I also recall MI changing after they knew the rules.

I don;t think the MI voters are as stupid as you think they are.

[jackson_dem]

67. Hopefully none do at the convention but one seems to be willing to do so if "necessary"

[Gore1FL]

74. No...

one seems immediately will to try to change the rules she agreed on in order to merely narrow a gap. But as i have shown, mathematically, MI and FL delegates are a wash, anyways when it comes to deciding this, unless Hillary takes an average of 5% more elected delegates from every state from now on.

This is a silly issue, you can probably come up with a legitimate and compelling reason to support Clinton if you tried. I can come up with better ones thatn you have on this thread, and mine are based on facts and reality.

[Skip Intro]

77. Why would they show up to support a party that told them to screw off a few months earlier?

[Gore1FL]

81. Maybe because

They hate war, joblessness, bad economies, shitty schools, a lack of health care, privatization of everything, being spied on, etc. And the fact that the GOP has been telling them to screw off since 1980?

[Skip Intro]

90. You going to be around election night in November? I'd love to chat with you then.

[Gore1FL]

92. I'll probably be drubk celebrating.

[davidinalameda]

53. they should be complaining to their party leaders

about the primary

I believe that Obama will be more than able to carry the state

I don't think that there will be any hard feelings once a nominee is chosen

I don't think that McCain will gain any ground by saying that people should vote for him because the state party leaders refused to follow the rules about the date of the primary

[Zhade]

63. It's not disenfranchisement when the state party leaders AGREED TO IT.

Stop fucking LYING already.

[jackson_dem]

68. What is the definition of disenfranchisement?

Great Obama argument in those states: "Hey, I disenfranchised you at the convention but I had a great reason: Iowa and New Hampshire are entitled to hijack the country ever four years!"

[Gore1FL]

82. Obama did not disenfranchise them

It is not in his power to disenfranchise them. It is not in his power to re-assign delegates to them.

I get the impression this whole nomination process is new to you. I've been following politics for overr 30 years. I was the only kid going into the 5th grade who watched the Democratic and Republican conventions during the summer. I remember Jimmy Carter gettin ghte nomination. I remeber watching the Georgia and Minnesota signs move together when Mondale was selected as VP. I am really familiar with the process. What you are describing s not the process. It has never been the process. It will never be the process.

As I have stated somewhere between 5 and 100 times on this thread:

There are plenty of valid arguments to be made on behalf of Hillary Clinton. You have yet to make one. If you can;'t make one, then you need to reassess why you support her.

Making up silly arguments based on misunderstandings of the process, or deciding that MA and NJ are suddenly going to sway towards McCain in November is simply laughable.

I recommend you visit Clinton's web page. You can find it at www.hillaryclinton.com . Click the issues button. Find something that strtikes your fancy. Learn about it. Post about it with understanding. Then, and only then, will you have a meaningful thread. Until then, avoid posting threads such as these, because they are simply uninformed foolishness that lowers your credibility. Seriously. am not trying to flame you, but rather explain to you that weak untenable arguments based on misconceptions is not a productive way to garner support for your candidate.

[BigDDem]

88. Don't forget Idaho!

[frogcycle]

5. but Obama beats Clinton in (insert name of red state)

oh, wait...

[Auntie Bush]

11. Or states with no people.

[thevoiceofreason]

6. 48th thread on this topic. Go home. Or to sleep.

[Auntie Bush]

7. Yeah, New Jersey!

Yes we can...count on NY to bring home the beef...er..I mean delegates.

[NJSecularist]

8. New Jersey will go to Obama if he is nominated

Trust me. He should win it by more than Kerry did too. There are some counties that Bush won in 2004 that McCain won't win in 2008.

[skipos]

9. I don't think you want to get into the poll wars

Look at the averages. Nationally Obama generally beats McCain by bigger margins than Hillary. In most states Obama generally does better against McCain than Hillary.

We can cherry pick polls all day (for example, the latest Quin poll has Obama doing better against McCain in both NY and NJ) but the best thing to do is look at the general trends of many polls.

[thewiseguy]

13. Democrats will reunite around one candidate

Because we are not going to have to be in Iraq for a 100 more years.

[jackson_dem]

23. 11% of Dems voted against Kerry and McCain siphons off a big chunk against Obama

If you are assuming Obama will get 90% Democratic support you are being very hopeful. He doesn't even do that now and the msm and rethugs have yet to touch him...

[thewiseguy]

26. Sure they have not touched him....

Have you by chance been listening to TV or watching radio talk show hosts?

I am sick of the assertion that Hillary has been getting negative press. CNN has been broadcasting her speeches on top of the hour. Fox was all over her cute SNL appearance today.

I do hope you drop this act after this tuesday. The democrats need to unite around one candidate.

[cooolandrew]

15. Yeah it's all about one state ignore nationally that Brack does win.

[jackson_dem]

21. Scary post. Do Obamites realize the prez is selected by the electoral college?

Obama runs 4-5 points better in national polls than Hill despite him being untouched by the msm and rethugs while both have savaged Hill for 16 years. Even if we "hope" nothing "changes" and Obama magically retains the same level of support once he is attacked, where does that extra 4-5 come from? Losing by 5 points less in Idaho does nothing for us in the electoral college.

[cooolandrew]

25. Hey New Jersy, you talking to me? link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akApqZPnyf4

[George_Bonanza]

18. Quinnipiac poll says otherwise

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=1145

Both Obama and Clinton beat McCain by a decent margin.

And Hillary loses most national polls against McCain, whereas Obama wins most of them. Enough said.

[thewiseguy]

24. Your poll does not count and it does not matter!

[jackson_dem]

31. When was the Constitution amended to elect a president by popular vote?

Cool. So one poll has him competitive there, another has he losing. Let's "hope" the Quinnipac one is right because we can gamble 15 electoral votes easily now that we have Utah, Montana, North Dakoa, Wyoming, and Kansas converted...

[George_Bonanza]

33. Ah, the Dubya strategy of losing the popular vote

You'd be willing to risk losing the national vote rather than New Jersey? That's pretty insane.

[jackson_dem]

36. Nice strawman. How is the president elected?

It isn't just NJ. It is Florida (27), PA (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), NJ (15), MA (13). Let's "hope" everything goes perfectly in these states! Besides, we can count on Utah, Wyoming, and Montana in the post-Obama era. Moreover, each state is equal in the post-Obama era so winning a state with 600,000 will be the same as winning Florida with 19 million. :woohoo:

[George_Bonanza]

39. I'm just playing the odds

Only twice in American history has a candidate lost the popular vote but won the election. Are you counting on Hillary to become the third?

Losing NJ would make things difficult, but losing the popular vote? Makes it damn near impossible. Even Dubya needed the Supreme Court to put him over.

[jackson_dem]

43. You can't have it both ways. The odds based on state polling say Obama will lose

Besides, it is very naive to think Obama's 4-5 margin over Hillary in trial heats with McCain will hold up under six months of rethug and msm fire 24/7. Hillary is at her floor in those match ups, the pure, untouched Obama is probably at his ceiling...

[George_Bonanza]

44. I don't quite get what you're saying

1) Obama wins national vote, while Hillary loses.

2) Hillary wins NJ, while Obama loses.

Both are unideal scenarios, but it's pretty much impossible to win the presidency without winning the popular vote (Dubya never would've done so without the Supreme Court, and Hillary won't be able to bank on Scalito and Roberts to give her the White House). While Obama losing NJ would be a blow to his campaign, I fail to see how this makes Hillary and her national deficits against McCain any better a candidate.

And you're wrong about Obama's peaking. He does better when he campaigns. As a Hillary supporter, you should know how frighteningly fast Obama can close even 20-point leads.

[jackson_dem]

48. Obama also runs worse in PA, OH, FL, and even MA in addition to NJ

We can all but add Michigan to the list. Where does Obama make up these electoral votes? Utah? Idaho? Wyoming?

That is a very rose-colored view. You think a guy who has gotten nothing but cheerleading from the corporate media for three years and wasn't touched by the rethugs until a couple days ago will be as strong after the other party attacks him 24/7 until November?

Yes, President Kerry won 46 states in the primaries and led Bush by 8 at this time in March...

[Gore1FL]

59. Two weeks ago he was behind in TX and OH by double digits

He'll probably campaign between now and November.

[George_Bonanza]

64. If Obama can eclipse Hillary, he can do the same to McCain

As I said before:

1) Only 2 presidential elections out of over 50 has ever given the presidency to the loser of the popular vote. Hillary's is in worse condition than Obama.

2) If anyone has hit the ceiling, it's Hillary. Obama closes gaps very quickly once he starts campaigning. Hmm, Obama behind in big states, only to pull out a big victory on the big day? Where have I heard this story before?

[BeyondGeography]

78. All states where he has barely campaigned, except for Ohio

where he is now even with Hillary after trailing badly for months. The more people get to know and see him, the better he does.

For all the time you spend on politics, you refuse to learn the first thing about Obama.

[Johnny__Motown]

22. Clinton Clinton McCain and Bush are all attacking him right now. what do you expect?

[jackson_dem]

32. I thought Obama was immune to attacks?

We have been told his 4-5 point trial heat match up will not disappear because Obama is immune to attacks.

[Johnny__Motown]

35. It takes him off message constantly answering the slime machines

Look at how well he has done since Edwards dropped out. Get it down to a 1 on 1, or even a 2 on 1 and his numbers will go right back up again.

[rodeodance]

84. If he did not first attack clinton like he started about a month ago--maybe she

would not feel the need to protect herself.

[THUNDER HANDS]

27. Republicans always poll better in Jersey than they actually do

Corzine was neck and neck for Governor in the polls when he ran and on election day he won big.

[jackson_dem]

34. Bush only lost NJ by 6-7. McCain has a great chance of doing better than Bush in NJ

Bush never had a chance to siphon off as much as one-fourth of Democrats in New Jersey. McCain does--if we nominate Obama...

[BenDavid]

30. HRC " I take obama at his word"....I would have said, "who cares

how he worships as long as he shows up"

People are taking their second look at obama and not liking what they see....Others are having buyers remorse....

It would be so funny if obama lost the nomination because he portrayed hisself as "the one" as oprah said and that "epiphany event" obama liked to use comes back and bites him on the ass. Maybe my christian friends that support HRC will come in the DU after he loses the nomination and post....."Only words and NO DEEDS".......

Yeah, when you go around telling folks they have "holes in their souls" that will surely dry up the collection plate soon. Then again maybe folks are seeing that obama has a huge hole in his own soul.

[jackson_dem]

38. Did you see him go from leading the Rassmussen b 9 to a tie in the last few days?

I think buyer's remorse if very real, especially given the rash mistake we made in 2004.

[Tarheel_Dem]

60. obama has this nasty habit of outperforming the polls, just so you know....

[jackson_dem]

69. Yes I remember his big wins in California, New Jersey, and who can forget New Hampshire!

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. eleven...count 'em ELEVEN straight wins!

:woohoo:

[malik flavors]

37. Didn't Clinton only have a single digit win over Obama in N.J.?

I don't think she even won the state by much and it was right in her backyard, so I don't see a big difference. Either dem will carry New Jersey

[jackson_dem]

40. Here is why "hope" is not a wise election strategy

Electoral vote from 2004

Bush 286
Kerry 252

Give New Jersey to the rethugs: McCain 301, Obama 237

Where is Obama going to make up the 15 he would likely lose in New Jersey, not to mention get the 18 additional electoral votes in non-Kerry states?

[George_Bonanza]

42. Must be full of the morally inclined Hillary supporters

They couldn't care less about IWR, but they just can't forgive Obama for the fact that he may or may not pick his nose when he thinks nobody's watching.

[jackson_dem]

50. So, where does Obama make up the 15 electoral votes?

Let's put aside Florda, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Massachusetts for the moment...

[Gore1FL]

55. First off, NJ is going blue, as is MA, as is PA, as is MI.

But...

VA
WV
NV
CO
NM
MO

should account for a few electoral votes, and they are ALL real possibilities

Then lets talk about the south. What happens if the huge African American populations of MS, AL, GA, LA and SC decide to vote this year?

OR the Southwest. What if the pissed off Latino communities come out in record numbers in TX, AZ?

Some of these are more likely that others, but we are in the middle of an election with the potential to forever redraw the electoral maps.

Whoever is the nominee is going to win big. Using an argument that they won't asa reason to support one nominee over the other, is really pointless, esp

[jackson_dem]

65. Count the electoral votes of those states

Then count what NJ, PA, OH, FL, MI, and MA have. You are relying on Obama running the table in the swing states. Sound familiar?

Obama has no shot in Deep South states and that theory has been debunked numerous times. It comes down to simple numbers. The Democratic primary electorate is hardly the general election electorate in those states. If it were Edwards may have won the South Carolina primary this time.

I have seen this "200% black turnout" theory many times. It is odd. It applies to only a few very rethug states (aside from LA). Women are the majority in all 50 states. If we apply that logic to women then Hillary can magically carry all 50 states if Obama can do so in four rethug states.

I applaud your optimism but we can't run an election with rose-colored glasses. As of right now we are in for a tough fight against msm darling McCain.

[Gore1FL]

73. Doesn't soud familar at all.

because that isn't what I am doing. so lets take it argument by argument:

Count the electoral votes of those states OK that is 48


Then count what NJ, PA, OH, FL, MI, and MA have. OK that is 112

Combined that is 160

Now lets add:

NY
CA
MN
WI
NH
VT
CT
RI
MD
DE
IA
IL
DC
OR
WA

That is 190 Added to the 160 from abovce that is 350. So far we are 80 over... Now lets subtract OH and FL -- just in case. That makes it 303. we can lose 33 more. lets assume you malarky is right and MI, MA and NJ goes red (excuse me while I stop laughing) That makes 259. If you are arguinmg that the Dems cannot find 11 electoral votes either in NC, GA, TN, or a combination of any two of AL, SC, MS, LA, or AR, you are nuts. (becaus ethink of all the money and time the Dem nominee can commit to those states after writing off, MI, OH, FL, NJ, and MA (Sorry-- laughing at again)...


Obama has no shot in Deep South states and that theory has been debunked numerous times.

Link?

It comes down to simple numbers.

Yeah and African Americans make majorities or near majorities in those states.

The Democratic primary electorate is hardly the general election electorate in those states.

And? You are the one turning blue states into red for dubious reasons.

If it were Edwards may have won the South Carolina primary this time.

What does that even mean?

I have seen this "200% black turnout" theory many times.

I haven't, but I was talking about a 40-50% turnout.

It is odd.

When you misrepresent it, it certainly is.

It applies to only a few very rethug states (aside from LA).

yeah, the very ones I mentioned.

Women are the majority in all 50 states. If we apply that logic to women then Hillary can magically carry all 50 states if Obama can do so in four rethug states.

Hillary doesn't have 90% of the woman vote. -- remeber, as you stated it is about numbers.

I applaud your optimism but we can't run an election with rose-colored glasses.

Clearly not. Look what happened when Hillary tried that.

As of right now we are in for a tough fight against msm darling McCain.

only if you think the current polling showing Obama beatig him by 10% as a tough fight.

Make no mistake it will get tough.

There are many arguments to be made for Obama and Clinton. This tract you agree on is not a valid one. As I tell the Right Wing Nutsa I argue with at capitol grilling, if the best you can come up with is silly spin based on nonsense in order to attack Obama, then perhaps you should reassess your reasons for voting as you are now intending.

[NJSecularist]

51. Stop letting him get under your skin - no Democrat is going to lose New Jersey!

This is what jackson_dem is known for. Stop falling for his baiting tactics.

[Tarheel_Dem]

62. you're right...i normally don't even open his "breathless" threads,

but I just had to see what his latest coronary was about.

[theboss]

61. These head to head polls don't matter now

They don't start to matter until August. What's the point?

In 2004, Joe Lieberman was the easy choice for the nominee in the early polls.
Guiliani should have cruised to victory according to the early polls.

[jgraz]

71. You do know they get to campaign a little before people vote, don't you?

And, last I checked, Hillary loses ground wherever she campaigns and Obama gains ground. Which trend line would you like to bet the next four years on? :shrug:

[woolldog]

72. enough with the fear mongering.

It's over. March 4 is just a formality.

[rodeodance]

85. Your crystal ball had a BIG crack in it.

[mattclearing]

75. Because everyone knows polls 8 months before the election are indicators of future outcome. n/t

[intaglio]

79. as far as you know n/t

[thesubstanceofdreams]

80. Hillary supporters were all over the place saying these polls don't matter

when they favored Obama. Now that Clinton is doing better than Obama in a couple of states, suddenly these GE matchup polls carry a lot of significance.

[angie_love]

83. I really don't even care anymore, you know both our candidates are flawed

but better than McCain. If a bunch of racist democrats don't want to vote for Obama then I give up. I hate this country. Let them have 100 years of war and sink this country further in a hole. I don't even care if Hillary is the nominee. I just don't care. How does this info help us? We're not superdelegates! We can't choose the nominee, the people are speaking. Do you have a megaphone you can use to the whole country to tell them to make Hillary the nominee? No? Then what do you want us to do? HUH?! HUH!?

[rodeodance]

86. Good morning to you also-----nice post. Thanks.

[Jersey Devil]

89. A hearty ROFLMAO from Joisey for ya

Yeah, sure, McCain wins NJ - when forking pigs fly!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Tom Rinaldo]

91. There are a number of States like this where Clinton runs strongest

Important ones like Florida and Ohio also. Not that we could afford to lose New Jersey.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

93. It the damnedest situation... national vs. local

Based on broadest measures, it's Obama.

Based on how to turn 2000 or 2004 into wins, it's Clinton.

Never have we known so little this late.

[Upton]

94. not in Wa. state

we have always been reliably blue, but a recent poll shows Obama leading John McCain in the state 54.9%-40.3%, but Clinton actually trails McCain 48.6%-45.1%.
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/132398.asp?source=rss

[AX10]

95. Because she is more electable.

[Downtown Hound]

96. Snort...if you really think that New Jersey

the state that legalized gay marriage, is going to pick McLame in the GE over Obama, I really, REALLY, want a hit of what you're smoking.

Actually no, on second thought, it sound like some pretty nasty stuff.

[Hoof Hearted]

97. K&R!

[froggy0]

98. very frightening, Hillary would hold NJ easily, but it's not even a "safe" state with Obama

This alone should be reason enough not to nominate him.

If Obama can't hold NJ, what about Pennsylvania?

[Gore1FL]

101. It would befrightenng if it were remotely valid

But fortunately, it isn't. It's just the silliness of the primary season on DU.

[Beacool]

99. Well, I could have told you that.

McCain is more popular in certain parts of Jersey than Obama. Hillary would do much better here than Obama, as she demonstrated in the primary. In my county (the largest one in the state), Obama only won by a slim margin in Jersey City and that was thanks to the black vote.

:shrug:

[fujiyama]

100. I'll admit that as an Obama supporter

this makes me somewhat uneasy.

Hillary does have an inherent advantage with NJ. She has also done better for the most apart among seniors. To Obama's credit, his numbers have often gone up after campaigning so I think he'd win NJ. Likewise, I'd be hopefully optimistic about PA. As much as I like Obama, he's going to need to do a better job addressing the rumors out there - like the "he's a Muslim" lie, the Rezko "connection", "he's unpatriotic" and a host of other bullshit that is surfacing.

All I know is that McCain will be a tough opponent in the fall and he's got the media on his side in a way no other candidate has in the past. He's cultivated this relationship over the last 8-9 years. Those Dems that believe this election will be a cakewalk are deluded. This will be nasty and bitterly fought.