Clinton crushes McSame in FL, PA, and OH. Obama loses in FL, OH

[jackson_dem]

-snip-

n=1,411 RV
McCain 44, Obama 43... Clinton 49, McCain 41

Ohio
n=1,127 RV
McCain 43, Obama 42... Clinton 48, McCain 38

Pennsylvania
n=1,494 RV
Obama 47, McCain 38... CLinton 51, McCain 37

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_quinnipiac_fl_pa_oh_42329.php

-snip-


Winning among white working class voters, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton holds strong leads over Arizona Sen. John McCain - and runs much better than Illinois Sen. Barack Obama - in three critical swing states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to three simultaneous Quinnipiac University Swing State polls released today. If Sen. Obama is the Democratic nominee, he's in a tight race with McCain in Florida and Ohio, but takes Pennsylvania.

This is Sen. Clinton's strongest overall performance since the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University began special surveys two years ago in the three largest and most important swing states in the Electoral College. This latest survey finds:

* Florida: Clinton tops McCain 49 - 41 percent; McCain gets 44 percent to Obama's 43 percent;
* Ohio: Clinton beats McCain 48 - 38 percent; McCain gets 43 percent to Obama's 42 percent;
* Pennsylvania: Clinton tops McCain 51 - 37 percent; Obama leads McCain 47 - 38 percent.

Among white working-class voters, Clinton ties McCain 45 - 45 percent in Florida, leads 46 - 40 percent in Ohio and 48 - 40 percent in Pennsylvania. These same voters back McCain over Obama 51 - 34 percent in Florida, 49 - 34 percent in Ohio and 45 - 38 percent in Pennsylvania.

"If the super delegates are looking at electability, these results could be a shot in the arm for Sen. Clinton. No one has won the White House since 1960 without carrying two of these three swing states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. And she clearly is running much better against Sen. McCain than is Sen. Obama, at least for now," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"There is no indication that Obama's problems with white working class Democrats in the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries have gone away," Brown added.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1173&What=&strArea=;&strTime=120

[Saturday]

1. Recommended. nt

[ProSense]

2. Obama beats Hillary in the primary. Game over. n/t

[NJSecularist]

3. And then loses by 200 electoral votes to McLame in the general election.

Neither candidate has enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. Which is why the superdelegates need to nominate the candidate who gives us the best chance to win the 3 most important swing states.

[msallied]

7. You're off your rocker.

You have NOTHING on which to base such a premise unless you are clairvoyant.

[NJSecularist]

10. I'm not off my rocker, I am dealing with reality.

Life is different outside of the netroots. It's a pipedream to think that Obama will win Ohio and Florida. He may even lose Pennsylvania.

[jackson_dem]

25. Thankfully the netroots doesn't represent the real world!

He may not even win Massachusetts for crying out loud!

[SeaLyons]

75. Yes, thank God !!

[JoFerret]

120. DU is not the world of actual voters

they are a small slice of it

[msallied]

32. You cannot POSSIBLY project that months outside the GE.

When the party is still divided and a nominee hasn't even been chosen. When Hillary is finally OUT of this race, the poll numbers will shift to reflect that. Your clinging to these polls as justification to continue dividing this party is pathetic. And it's this division of the party that is going to lose us the GE. NOT your perception of Obama's merit.

[NJSecularist]

38. The party is divided and Hillary is still winning these important states by large margins.

What's your point?

By your logic, wouldn't Hillary's general election numbers get better then after she won the nomination?

[msallied]

54. She won't win the nomination.

So your point is moot. Your cognitive dissonance has painted you into a corner where you'll grasp at anything to keep her dream alive.

[rodeodance]

71. All you can do is say NO. tsk tsk.

[msallied]

89. Welcome to my ignore list. I've been wanting to put you there for awhile now.

[mtnsnake]

103. What caused you to do it now? Is it because you just proved how you're no match for the rodeo?

lol

[jackson_dem]

12. NJSecularist is simply pro sense

Obama is another Dukakis. Dukakis lost the popular vote by 7 but the electoral college by over 300. Obama losing the electoral vote by 200 is possible. Bush 41 lost the popular vote by 5 and the electoral vote by about 200.

[msallied]

22. I'm sorry, but are we in the general election?

Your projections are absolutely meaningless when we haven't even solidified the Democratic Party behind a nominee. But trust me, it will happen. I apologize in advance that it won't work out in your favor.

[jackson_dem]

40. Yes, and Obama's popularity will also continue to wane as he gets attacked, defined, and vetted

Once again, can Obamites name the last "new" candidate running against an incumbent who was stronger in November after being attacked for months than he was in the spring? Kerry 04', Bush 00', and Dukakis 88' definitely were not (-11, -11, and -24 in Dukakis' case after the convention)...

[msallied]

45. Wow, O Great Seer! That was remarkable!

Keep looking back 20 years to predict the future. It's hilarious, but I see that it works for you. Keeps you from focusing on the PRESENT day where your candidate has is perceived as negative and untrustworthy by a vast majority of the electorate and where she's LOSING THE RACE.

That is the reality of the situation. Focus on that, and you just might be salvaged in time for the general election.

[jackson_dem]

48. Kerry ran 4 years ago, Bush ran 8 years ago as the "new" candidate of "change"

There are political realities and all the bamboozling and hoodwinking in the world won't change that.

[msallied]

59. Who's banboozsling and hoodwinking?

The Clinton campaign has made a career out of it!

[Arkansas Granny]

42. What works in my favor is a Democratic President. I have looked at several

projected electoral votes for 2008 and they show Hillary getting more than enough electoral votes to win. They do not show Obama with the required 270 electoral votes. Regardless what the popularity polls show, we aren't playing American Idol and the candidate that can win more electoral votes for the Democratic party needs to be the nominee.

[msallied]

46. How in the world can you back such polls

when the Democratic electorate is still DIVIDED between TWO candidates?? Those polls are meaningless until there is one candidate that the party can finally unite behind.

[jackson_dem]

52. Yet Clinton still wins. So you are projecting a Clinton landslide when the party unites?

While Obama may squeak by narrowly like Kerry and Gore did? Oh wait...

[msallied]

56. You are thicker than a tree stump.

You're projecting a McCain landslide when the party hasn't even chosen a candidate. When everyone finally has a chance to unite behind Obama so he's not fighting off attacks from Republicans and his own party, then such GE projections will finally become pertinent. Right now, your "projections" are silly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. What Evidence Do You Have That Groups That Resisted Obama In The Past Will No Longer Resist Him?

~

[msallied]

86. Clearly you get your "evidence" from activist messaage boards

that do not reflect reality. Regular voters and swing voters will get behind the Democrat as they always have. The hardcore hold-outs are in the minority. But believe me, if the nomination is stolen from the frontrunner of this race, the outcry will be that much greater. Hillary will look like the girl who caught the bouquet, but only after she hamstringed one of the bridesmaid who actually caught it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. I'm A Logical Positivist...My Conclusions Are A Product Of The Data

I see poll after poll that suggests that thirty to fifty percent of Clinton supporters, depending on the state, say they they will not vote for Obama...

That means that Obama can not count on more than 75% to 80% of the Democratic vote... I do not believe he can find those votes elsewhere...

[JoFerret]

119. On what posible evidence do you base

your fantasy?

[ProSense]

8. And then wins without Hillary on the ticket. She lost: no GE for Hillary. Face it. n/t

[NJSecularist]

16. Face what?

You can say over and over again that Hillary has lost and it just isn't true. As much as you would like for it to be true.

[jackson_dem]

26. That is the pro sense position

;)

[bowens43]

Really? Do you have any evidence of this

other then these meaningless bullshit polls? No? I didn't think so.

[NJSecularist]

66. He's a new candidate who is tanking in the polls who hasn't even been vetted yet.

Losing by 200 electoral votes is well within possibility.

[Maddy McCall]

34. And then loses in the GE.

That's nothing to celebrate.

[msallied]

4. Using these polls as justification for continuing to rip apart the Democratic Party

is not only shameful but makes you look like an idiot. You'll cling to anything to keep your delusion alive. I might as well be one of the candidates in those polls for all they are worth at this point in the race. The idea is to pick a NOMINEE and THEN start looking at GE polls.

[jackson_dem]

5. Michael Dukakis is that you?

[msallied]

15. I really feel sorry for you.

[jackson_dem]

43. Not as sorry as we all will feel on November 4 if Obama is the nominee

[msallied]

49. Miss Cleo? Is that you??

[NJSecularist]

53. You don't need to be Miss Cleo to figure out that Obama is unelectable. n/t

[msallied]

58. Seeing as how he's winning the primary, that nullifies your view

and makes your calling the losing candidate electable look even more absurd.

[NJSecularist]

61. The primary election and the general election are two entirely different animals.

Obama will not win states on the back on the black vote like he is doing now.

Or maybe he'll win Georgia and Mississippi, right? :crazy:

[msallied]

77. Your subject head of your last post is EXACTLY why your original point is BULLSHIT

Two different animals. Therefore your attempt to project a GE winner when there are still two people fighting it out in the Democratic primary is RIDICULOUS. When the person who is currently WINNING this primary seals the nomination and has a united party behind him, and can focus all of his efforts and money on John McCain, you will see a major shift in the polling, and whether it shows him winning or losing, the numbers will be a HELL of a lot more valid than they are right now!

[NJSecularist]

6. The idea is to pick the most electable candidate. n/t

[msallied]

9. Seeing as how Hillary is broke and losing this race

the question of "electability" has been answered.

[ProSense]

11. No the idea is to win. The winner is then more electable than the loser. n/t

[msallied]

17. Exactly! How can the loser be more electable?

It's like saying that a busted up vehicle that doesn't even start gets better gas mileage.

[NJSecularist]

24. No, it's like saying the candidate who trails by 1 lap with 100 laps to go in the race. n/t

[msallied]

37. There are not 100 laps to go in the race. There are fewer than 10.

And she trails by way more than 1.

[jackson_dem]

29. Ask McGovern and Dukakis

:scared:

[msallied]

41. Different races, different times, different candidates, different world

Apples and oranges.

Your brain is warped.

[jackson_dem]

44. Politics is politics. The strongest GE candidate doesn't always win the primaries

See: Kerry 04' (Clark), Bush 00' (McCain), Mondale 84' (Hart), Carter 80' (Kennedy), Reagan 80' (Bush--the reason this worked out for the rethugs was Carter's popularity tanked), McGovern (Humphrey, maybe Jackson), and so on. What is warped is assuming the nomination winner is the strongest general election. This is especially true when the primary lead is narrowly built on gaming the system (see: McGovern).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. That's Absurd...

Politics is like boxing... Styles make fights as they make political matches... Joe Frazier gave Muhummad Ali fits... George Foreman beat Joe Frazier like a drum, twice... Muhammad Ali beat George Foreman...

[NJSecularist]

18. Your one-liners are not clever.

Neither candidate has won anything yet. Your wishful thinking is different than the facts.

[ProSense]

21. Your fantasy is tiring. Fact: Hillary is behind and can't catch up. n/t

[NJSecularist]

27. Fact: Obama will not get 2024 pledged delegates. He is not entitled to the nomination. n/t

[ProSense]

30. Fact: Winner wins, loser loses. Fact: loser doesn't win, winner wins n/t

[NJSecularist]

33. Fact: Obama is not the winner yet. Fact: Hillary has a chance to win. n/t

[ProSense]

35. Show me how, numbers please! n/t

[NJSecularist]

47. Here's the math: 1491 pledged delegates < 2024 pledged delegates n/t

[ProSense]

60. That's the math for Hillary winning? n/t

[NJSecularist]

64. That's the math for the reason why Obama is not the nominee yet. n/t

[ProSense]

69. No, that's the math for your inability to show how Hillary can take the lead. n/t

[NJSecularist]

79. It's also my math to show Obama's inability to win the nomination without superdelegates. n/t

[ProSense]

97. What is it that you don't understand: Hillary is behind, Obama wins

It's that simple. The superdelegates will go to the candidate who is ahead. Game over.

Prolonging the inevitable (defined by math), doesn't make it less inevitable.

[NJSecularist]

101. False.

It's your own wishful thinking to state that the SDs will go to the candidate with more pledged delegates. It's certainly not a fact. Obama does not have enough pledged delegates to clinch.

Just because you say it is inevitable doesn't make it so.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

31. Ah, the Kerry strategy. What a winner that was!

[Upton]

13. Actually this is good news for Obama

showing he is within the MOE in Fla. and Ohio and leading in Pa. I see you removed your Suns avatar, unfortunately for you, the one you replaced it with is destined for the same fate.

[jackson_dem]

20. This is not good news. He is already losing despite the rethug machine not having gone after him yet

Why is a woman who the rethugs, MSM have savaged for 16 years, the far left has attacked rabidly for 5-6 years, and who has been attacked for over a year by rivals for the nomination outperforming a "new", fresh face this badly? (Answer: his fundamental problem of many folks not voting for him, even if they like him and would like to have a beer with him, simply because he has no experience).

[ProSense]

28. Actually it is:

On the bright side for Obama, his showings in Florida and Pennsylvania have improved since the last poll from a month ago. However, Hillary is still outperforming him in all three states.

link

Obama improved? Impossible, what about Wright-gate and Bitter-gate?

All of these BS GE polls are smoke and mirrors to bolster Hillary's argument in a race she can't win.

[NJSecularist]

50. Improved is not good enough when you trailed by so much at the beginning.

You don't get proportional delegates in the general election. It's winner-take-al;l

[ProSense]

65. Hillary will not be in the GE. It's a contest between Obama and McCain. n/t

[NJSecularist]

67. Really? When did Obama clinch the nomination? n/t

[rodeodance]

76. What is that magic number?????

[ProSense]

98. Greater than: whatever margin Obama leads by could be 1 to 150. n/t

[Inuca]

36. Would care to define "outperforming"?

Because by all meaningful measures she is losing.

[Texas Hill Country]

14. k&r

[Neshanic]

19. You did not get the memo. Resistance is futile.

[rodeodance]

80. That memo ASSumes Hillary supporters are sheepies.

[uponit7771]

23. FYI: A 10 point swing in 3 polls with credibility is something you can bank on. NONE of the numbers

...you cite are a 10 point swing and Obama wins by same margin in Penn as Hillary

[jefferson_dem]

39. "Loses"...

:rofl:

[rocktivity]

51. Head-to-head matchups aren't valid

when there are more than two heads.

:headbang:
rocknation

[NJSecularist]

55. So Hillary's numbers will get better than they already are when she is the nominee?

By your logic, that means it should be an absolute guarentee that she will win all of these important swing states, right?

[msallied]

68. When she's the nominee...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

you know, if you were a child, your disconnection from reality would almost be cute.

[NJSecularist]

84. The reality is that neither candidate has won enough pledged delegates to win the nomination

Sorry that the reality conflicts with your warped version of reality in your netroots cocoon.

[rocktivity]

81. And who's to say Obama's numbers wouldn't change--or even McCain's? THAT'S the problem.

As long as there is a choice of Dem candidate but no choice of GOP candidate, it's not a real head-to-head matchup, it's speculation.

:headbang:
rocknation

[bowens43]

57. completely meaningless.

Until Obama is officially the nominee and he actively campaigns against McCain, this is nothing more then meaningless bullshit.

[NJSecularist]

74. So Hillary's numbers will get better when she is the nominee?

By that logic, she is pretty much guarenteed to win Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania then.

Why not nominate her then?

[Phillycat]

62. I can't believe people don't understand the OH/PA/FL importance.

Is this their first national election in our generation? Did they not pay any attention in 2000 or 2004? Our candidate MUST win all 3 or strongly win 2 of 3. It's simple statistics. Hillary is the only candidate who can do that.

[PVnRT]

73. "Must win"? Not really

One of the three, yes. Kerry lost by a small margin losing Ohio and Florida - same with Gore. It's nice to win them, but not necessary, provided you can win in other states.

[NJSecularist]

82. So you are using the 2000 and 2004 model on how to win an election?

Did you forget that we lost both elections?

The reason why they both lost is because neither carried 2 of the three big swing states (Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio). Both of them only carried Pennsylvania.

Fact: Pennsylvana and Florida/Ohio are a must win.

[Phillycat]

83. Hee!

"You know that one time when we lost? Let's try that exact same thing again, but, you know, win."

The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, expecting differenct results.

[jackson_dem]

114. The problem is the Obama camp's claims of "expanding the map" is just a fairy tale

They never explain how he makes up the 47 electoral votes he loses in FL and OH alone, not to mention the shaky 21 in PA with him heading the ticket.

[BootinUp]

87. I think its like a gambleholic sickness. nt

[PVnRT]

107. Had Gore won his home state, Florida would have been irrelevant

[jackson_dem]

113. Gore never had a shot in his home state because he was perceived as out of touch. Sound like anyone?

[yellowcanine]

95. People understand. They just don't agree with your conclusions.

It is possible for people to agree with your premise but disagree with your conclusion. And actually your analysis is a little off anyway. We can win without Florida and Ohio if we can grab a couple of other red states - Virginia and North Carolina, for example. Secondly, we don't have to "strongly win" any state, just win them under the winner take all EV system.

[NJSecularist]

96. When is the last time Virginia and North Carolina went blue?

Here's a hint: 1964 and 1976.

Obama will win neither state.

[yellowcanine]

108. Doesn't matter. Virgina at least will go blue this year. Want to bet against both VA and NC going

blue this year if Obama is the candidate?

[jackson_dem]

115. The only way VA and NC go blue is if there is a 40+ state landslide

[krkaufman]

72. Oh, I'm howling....!!!

So Hillary's big campaign talking point is a lie. Looks like Obama can win that big state of Pennsylvania just fine. Too, too funny.

[SeaLyons]

78. K&R

Go Hillary

[pecwae]

85. Big K and an R!

[yellowcanine]

88. STATE GE POLLS DON'T MEAN SQUAT NOW! Rewind, Repeat as necessary.

[NJSecularist]

91. Yet national polls are used daily as proof of Obama's electability by the Obamites.

:crazy: :crazy:

[yellowcanine]

106. Two misperceptions don't make a correct perception.

[Edgewater_Joe]

90. I'd Be Worried If the Election Was NEXT WEEK

But since it's in November, I'm not worried.

Obama WILL WIN this November -- unless you and the rest of the Hillbots really secretly love McSameAsBush as much as you seem to by stringing out Hillary's LOST CAMPAIGN.

[rg302200]

93. It must be nice to live in a fantasy world...whats it like?

Neither Hillary or Obama will win Ohio, I know I live here. However what Obama does is put more "red" states; North Carolina, Nevada, Virginia, New Mexico, Missouri, Iowa and so on; into play. What does Clinton have to offer? Going after Ohio, FL and PA again? Was that not the same game plan for Kerry? We see how that worked out for him. Get a F****** life Clinton will get blown away by McCain in the GE because people that hate her will come out in droves to vote against her. Where as the same people will vote for Obama because, "Hey at least its not Hillary...."

[NJSecularist]

94. Hillary will win Ohio.

Obama is not winning either North Carolina or Virginia.

Hillary has more of a chance to win Missouri than Obama.

[jackson_dem]

116. Obama is uncompetitive in MO right now while Clinton leads there

[last1standing]

99. Is that before or after her campaign manager's felony vote suppression is accounted for?

Because we need to know if being imprisoned for vote suppression will change the numbers.

[democrattotheend]

100. Obama is within the MOE in OH and FL

Which is pretty remarkable, given the week he's had. He's losing both of those states by 1 point. He has improved signficantly in Florida and Pennsylvania since the last Quinnipiac poll. All in all, I find this poll encouraging. She does look stronger in these three states, as I have said all along she would be. But he looks stronger in other must-win Kerry states, and puts more Bush states in play. They both have a very good chance to win, but the electoral map would look different in a Clinton-McCain race and an Obama-McCain race.

[Robbins]

109. Obama

The big news here Is Mccain Is only 1 point ahead of Obama In Florida and Ohio.This Is the best
Obama has done In florida,and Is Improving In Ohio from 3 behind to 1 behind.Remember all the shit that has been thrown at him and he Is still competive In Ohio and florida and wins PA.This Is actully good news for Obama.As I have maintained poll numbers can chance.President Perot anybody?
Bush winning by a landslide?

[jonestonesusa]

102. The poster's point is a fair one at this point in the election season.

There's no doubt that Obama faces challenges to carry these important states in the GE - so does Clinton. However, another region that is a must hold for the Democrats is the Upper Midwest. To win, the Democrats must carry Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, and Michigan. HC is probably strongest in Michigan among these states, but in my view Obama is stronger in Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois.

So while there's some cherry picking here and some echoing of HC's campaign talking points, there's also a real challenge that Obama faces in these states, and Obama is the first to acknowledge this. Unlike HC, BO is not taking for granted that all these states will stay blue without a pointed and effective campaign. But he'll get a big bump among much of the Democratic progressive community once he receives the nomination, as he is likely to. So I give limited credence to the current polls that are predicated on a Clinton victory in the primary season.

[jackson_dem]

117. It is the electoral math

First Illinois is a safe Democratic state that either candidate would win. That leaves IA, WI, MN, and MI. Obama has consistently polled better than Clinton in Iowa. However, for the first time Clinton pulled into a narrow 1 point lead over McSame in Iowa. Still, if we are choosing based on Iowa Obama is our candidate. Iowa has 7 electoral votes. Wisconsin and Minnesota both have 10 electoral votes. Clinton actually loses WI right now. Both win MN but Obama, the Midwesterner, is substantially stronger. So we are at 27 electoral votes that Obama would safely bring him right now while Clinton is iffy. Obama wins MI, Clinton loses. MI has 17 electoral votes. This is based on one poll and I suspect it is an outlier. It is hard to see her doing so much worse than him in MI but let's assume it is accurate from now.

The cherry picking is based on the electoral college. The four states you mentioned have 44 electoral votes. Florida and Pennsylvania combined have 48. Ohio has another 20.

Obama would get a bump--and then he would be hit 24/7 for months by the rethugs. Thus far he has shown a glass jaw to attacks...

Source: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May01.html http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May01.html

[jonestonesusa]

125. Thanks for the info on the current polling #s and the link.

I like this site - followed it last election cycle. I wasn't aware that Obama is currently polling stronger against McCain than Clinton in Michigan. It's interesting to consider the demographic differences between Michigan and Ohio/Pennsylvania.

I think Clinton would hold Wisconsin, but last time Kerry won by 10,000 votes, I think. Minnesota should stay safe Democrat, but they haven't had a Democratic governor since 1992 if I remember right, and Republicans win the U.S. Senate races occasionally, maybe even this year if Al Franken has further trouble.

It's largely up to Obama to reframe his campaign after the media and HC feeding frenzy on the Wright issue. I also think he will do more to help Congressional and local candidates all over the country. But there's no question it's a challenging road for him to regain some momentum in this campaign and redefine history. It's certainly far from a guarantee - of loss or victory.

[durrrty libby]

104. BO would lose in the GE. He needs to get out of the way asap

[jonestonesusa]

112. All snickering, no dialogue...

That reminds me of how HC responds to tough questions, and her supporters on DU follow suit.

[Justyce]

105. K&R. nt

[Cameron27]

110. Thanks Jackson!

K&R

[NJSecularist]

111. K&R.

:kick:

[Awsi Dooger]

118. Hillary has the surer route but Obama can win

At 4:45 AM that's about as simple as I can make it.

The statewide numbers were destined to tighten, and they'll tighten some more. That's the problem with sites like fivethirtyeight, or whatever it is. I've seen it linked recently but when you rely on statewide polls in general election terms you start with a fundamental flaw.

It's an extreme swerve from primaries where state polling is more relevant than national polling, to the fall where opposite is true and you have to be eager to let go of one and lasso the other. The states will naturally fall in line with their typical tendencies, in relation to the national margin.

And there's no way two Democrats will fare dramatically different from the same Republican. I've seen state polling with 10-15 point gaps between Obama's fortunes and Hillary's fortunes. That's pure Monty Python. It will be a handful of points at most, in certain states.

Unfortunately for our side, given where we are, Hillary has more margin for error than Obama in the critical states. At 50/50 nationally Hillary wins the electoral college more often than Obama does. But Obama can potentially offset that via superior national relationship to McCain. That's the wild card, which Democrat fares best in election eve national polling vs. McCain?

[aquarius dawning]

121. I'm glad to se eI'm not the only person talking about this.

I mus be ignored by every Obama supporter at DU because every time I post this bit of info, there's an odd silence from them.

[Freedom Train]

122. K&R!

:patriot:

[Freedom Train]

123. K&R!

:patriot:

[aquarius dawning]

124. K&R