Obama Wins Mississippi

So Barack Obama seems to have won Mississippi handily... per the exits polls (thanks CBS News, as always) the racial demographics are pretty stunning when race is the order of the day: Clinton wins whites 70 to 30; Obama wins blacks 90 to 10; the electorate split roughly 50-50. (Clinton wins white men and white men by roughly 70% and 74% respectively). Democrats find Obama more honest and trustworthy, more ready to be commander in chief, more likely to take on John McCain (62% to 34%), and better prepared for the challenges facing the country -- this one by only five points points. McCain has a favorable rating of 37% among MS Dem voters.

The rift in the party widens: Obama voters by and large would NOT be satisfied (55%) with Clinton as their nominee, while 7 and ten Clinton voters would NOT be satisfied (72%) with Obama as theirs.

Comments

If Clinton wins the nomination, it is time for Obama to work out the plus and minuses of forming a new party and leave these two antiques behind.

Posted by D | March 11, 2008 9:21 PM

At best +3 delegates for Obama. That is less than Clinton's margin in RI.

Posted by eric1974 | March 11, 2008 9:25 PM

Come on - we're talking Mississippi!!! Not exactly a picture of America as a whole...

The bigger question is whether right-wing media and the Clintons are banding together to attract conservative voters. Remember, Bill called Limbaugh's show on 3/4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqL_sm0J8jc

Now we have Ferraro on John Gibson's show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqL_sm0J8jc

Are the Clintons in cahoots with the GOP???

Posted by Judy | March 11, 2008 9:26 PM

According to Chuck Todd of MSNBC, Obama's net tonight should be either 7 or 9. Combined with Wyoming, tonight's delegate haul should negate the advantage that Clinton had in OH and RI (she actually "lost" TX in terms of delegates).

Posted by AndyJackson | March 11, 2008 9:32 PM

Is the media blind? How many Limbaugh voters showed up to try to play games with the election and deliver the most unelectable candidate, Hillary, to the Democrats? This is a large and growing phenomenon, and needs to be addressed.

Ideally, the superdelegates shut this thing down for Obama before they allow Rush to influence the selection of their nominee.

Posted by cm | March 11, 2008 9:32 PM

"The rift in the party widens: ..."

We're talking about one state with its own peculiar set of racial politics. Can we really make these sorts of national-trend types of generalizations?

Posted by Craig | March 11, 2008 9:33 PM

Craig:

You guys would be making that generalization if the roles were reversed, I can guarantee that.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 9:36 PM

eric174

+3 delegate margin?

try again

Posted by wayne | March 11, 2008 9:37 PM

This is the future for the Democratic party if Hillary is the nominee: John McCain at the RNC notes that the "Democratic" party has as its the nominee someone who did not win the majority of the delegates, popular vote, or states.

That plus the African American vote abandons Hillary.

I mean, how can the Democrats think of even selecting a nominee like Hillary that keeps losing state after state, and by such wide margins?

Posted by cm | March 11, 2008 9:38 PM

State after state?

You mean like Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, New York, California, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Arizona, New Hampshire, Nevada, Tennessee? Would those be the states she lost by such large margins?

Does it look like she's going to lose Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, and Michigan and Florida if they re-vote?

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 9:43 PM

For those curious about Republicans, according to Ben Smith they were 11% of voters in the D primary, and went 85% for Clinton--that's her strongest demographic group by far in this election, leaving whites and women in the dust, and 9 points of whatever total she ends up with.

And as feelings harden against the other candidate, I do hope they can bring this thing to a close. 8 months is lots of time to reconcile; late July might be pushing things.

Posted by Deborah | March 11, 2008 9:46 PM

Tim K

Obama expects to win IN. Even with FL as is and a MI do-over, Obama will win the most pledged delegates, votes, and states. He will be the nominee. Period.

Posted by nattybumpo | March 11, 2008 9:47 PM

After tonight, Obama will have won well over half the states in the Union, and many by huge blowout margins.

How can the Democrats think of nominating someone who didn't win the majority of the states? Has that ever happened?

How can the Democrats think of nominating someone who didn't win the majority of the elected delegates? Has that ever happened?

Then there's the fact that that African American vote will never come back to Hillary, after all of her race baiting.

The Democratic party needs to grow a spine and shut this thing down and go with Obama. Hillary is now damaged goods, and cannot win. Do not belittle the damage being done by continuing this contest. It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of the Clintons using the most vicious, scorched earth strategy imaginable.

Posted by cm | March 11, 2008 9:47 PM

"You guys would be making that generalization if the roles were reversed, I can guarantee that."

What do you mean reversed? If Obama had won whites as well as blacks in such a polarized place, that would significantly mean something. Noticing that, in a state widely recognized for the vast chasm between many of its white citizens and its black citizens and subsequent racism, blacks and whites select differently clearly does not point necessarily to a national trend. I'm not sure what reversal you're talking about.

Posted by Forrest | March 11, 2008 9:48 PM

At least we know that Obama doesn't benefit by running as a "Black Candidate". Or from having his campaign PULL OUT THE RACE CARD JUST PRIOR TO EACH BLACK DOMINATED STATE PRIMARY.

Posted by robert ethan | March 11, 2008 9:51 PM

Tim, I really can't figure you out.

You mean like Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, New York, California, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Arizona, New Hampshire, Nevada, Tennessee? Would those be the states she lost by such large margins?

Are you *really* saying that Obama would *lose* RI, NY, CA, NJ, or MA in the general? Are you *really* saying that Clinton will win AR (maybe, I grant you), OK (no way), NM (this could go for either candidate), AZ (not a chance in hell), NH (get real), NV (again, maybe, for either candidate), or TN?

Your argument is really really silly.

Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, and Michigan and Florida

You *really* think that Clinton will in IN, or KY? They have equal chances in MI and FL, you should have that one pretty figured out. WV is anybody's guess, but I'd be surprised if either of them could take it.

Posted by justinb | March 11, 2008 9:51 PM

It looks like she will lose Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and Michigan if a re-vote.

Posted by InCog Neato | March 11, 2008 9:51 PM

Keep telling yourself that, InCo Herant.

Posted by robert ethan | March 11, 2008 9:54 PM

People...look at the big picture: Obama has this thing won in delegates, popular votes, and states.

Right now dragging this thing out only allows Hillary to tear the party down, and Rush Limbaugh to keep on laughing, as he sends his voters out to sabotage the party.

And as Pelosi pointed out, thanks to the Clintons there will be no combo ticket.

I am telling you that you the Democratic party is putting itself at risk if it allows this thing to continue. Those who belittle this idea are the same people who have been wrong all along in predicting what would happen.

Posted by cm | March 11, 2008 9:56 PM

Loved the tweak of Hillary post-win where he notes that she would be "a great choice" for Veep. His Veep... This won't be over anytime soon.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | March 11, 2008 9:58 PM

It is a question of how long it will take the 85% of the nation's population who are not African American to respond to the BLATANT RACISM OF AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTERS in this election. Not that it is anything new or strange. Just that the stakes have never been this high before.

Posted by robert ethan | March 11, 2008 10:03 PM

Oh goody goody gumdrops, Robert Ethan is back to spray racist filth all over the place.

Posted by John M. | March 11, 2008 10:06 PM

At best +3 delegates for Obama. That is less than Clinton's margin in RI.

eric1974, you're a HUGE jackass. Go away, kid.

Posted by Jose | March 11, 2008 10:08 PM

Brother Tim K, Mom always said that you were a douchebag.

Posted by Tim J | March 11, 2008 10:12 PM

Rush is laughing at the Democratic party...he is laughing at how the Clintons are destroying the party.

Posted by cm | March 11, 2008 10:13 PM

From the Obama leaked spreadsheet thats been about 95% accurate:

Penn. 47% 52%
Guam 55% 44%
Indiana 53% 46%
N. Carolina 53% 45%
W. Virginia 43% 55%
Kentucky 42% 56%
Oregon 52% 47%
Montana 55% 44%
S. Dakota 57% 42%
Puerto Rico 45% 54%

Hillary needs to win 64% in each and every contest to take a delegate lead. It will not happen.

Posted by bjd | March 11, 2008 10:13 PM

CM:

The number of states won is irrelevant. How many Idahos does it take to equal one California? How many Wyomings does it take to equal one New York? How many North Dakotas does it take to equal one New Jersey? With all due to respect to the people of small states, not a lot of people live there compared to the larger states and this is supposed to be a democracy. One person, one vote. Not one acre, one vote.

Forest:

No what I was saying is that Senator Clinton has won a very significant number of votes so far (nearly as many as Obama) and a very significant number of pledged delegates (nearly as many as Obama) and has done so by winning in very large states. I wasn't making any argument about who might win which states in the general or not.

With the general election in mind, however, it might be interesting to consider what each candidates demonstrable strengths in these contests might tell us about their performance in November. Which states most resemble the nation as a whole, and which processes most resemble the November election process?

The general election is essentially a collection of concurrent, open, winner-take-all primaries. It's not going to be a caucus (as in IA, ND,WY,CO,MN,etc), and it's not going to be played out amongst a voter pool that is 50% African American (like in LA, GA, MS, AL and SC).

The general election is going to look a lot like Ohio. Ohio had an open primary (not a caucus) and its demographics are a lot like America. Ohio's population is 84% white and 12% black, and 2% latino. So it looks a lot like America except there are many more hispanics in the country as a whole. Considering those demographics and that process, I would conclude that not only would Clinton win a national primary if that were done, but Clinton has a stronger case to make that she is the stronger general election competitor.

And finally:

The winner of the pledged delegates is not the nominee.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 10:20 PM

Rush is laughing at how Obama and his supporters are destroying the Democratic party. He is laughing at people who don't understand Obama with his far left policies and inexperience and inability to win Reagan Democrats can never win the GE. Obama is just McGovern with a better speaking style. He is still a McGovern. He is destroying the party because of his naked personal ambition.

He is simply unqualified to be the president of the United States.

Posted by John | March 11, 2008 10:23 PM

To those who don't believe Clinton can win IN, think again - HARD. Once you're outside of Gary, it's pretty damn white. The only real metropolitan area is Indianapolis. The farther downstate you get, the more it resembles rural Kentucky. I've done a couple gigs in Fort Wayne - there's basically one or two classic rock stations, a Mexican station, everything else is country and Jesus. It's a state where the Democrats (think Tim Roemer) are anti-choice.

Remember, the last known public lynching took place in Marion, IN. Maybe this explains Clinton's recent campaign tactics...

Posted by JR | March 11, 2008 10:28 PM

No. Rush is not laughing at Obama or his supporters, he is gleeful about the fact that the entire Democratic party is in complete dissarray and will take time to put itself together. I am telling you this for a fact, irrespective of what Miss. voters said or felt, there is a lot of angst and ugliness in both camps and it needed to stop a month ago. I genuinely believe that majority of the dems want to move beyond the Clintons for they are divisive and polarizing. they are just tooscared of an unknown entity. I am not, I would love to see a new face with a great message that seems to resonate among people like me. Obama would do well in the general based on the way he has run his campaign. There seems to be trouble in the clinton camp at all times. I still think if Barack works Pennsylvania, he can win that state. People like him. They don't like her. When you vote you vote for the guy u like. Such is life.

Posted by ap | March 11, 2008 10:34 PM

Tim K. - The problem with your analysis is that you think Obama's consistent performance in big states where he loses by relatively small margins to Hillary is somehow indicative of a losing candidacy in the general. The fact is that even when he loses, Obama does very, very well in terms of racking up vote totals. With a few very small exceptions, Hillary cannot make the same argument. Obama's "floor" among Democrats in just about every state election, whether large or small, whether primary or caucus, is perhaps the mid 40s. On the other hand, Clinton's "floor" is perhaps the mid 30s. And Clinton's ceiling is much lower than Obama's. It baffles me that you can't see that.

Posted by huckupchuck | March 11, 2008 10:38 PM

Tim K,

In the GE Clinton will lose Ohio, she will lose in Florida and lose the election. Obama can lose both and still win by picking up states in the west and mid west.

Posted by bjd | March 11, 2008 10:38 PM

I'm always amused by people who claim that Obama can't win the general election. How much longer does he have to win before you accept that he's capable of winning? John, your argument seems to be, "Nobody will vote for him! Um...except for all of the crazy people who did! And they don't count!"

There's another funny meme going around Hillaryland - the "just words" meme. Example - When Greg Craig persuasively debunked Hillary's claim of foreign policy experience, her campaign denounced it as "just words."

I'm not sure where the "just" comes from, but they were indeed words. Words linked together to make sentences. Sentences, which linked together to make a fairly substantive argument. Words are how humans communicate, primarily. Were they expecting body language?

Posted by Doug | March 11, 2008 10:42 PM

The winner of the pledged delegates is not the nominee.

Tim, please provide us with a scenario where Clinton can win enough delegates to get the nomination. Please.

Posted by justinb | March 11, 2008 10:43 PM

Could it be that the racial divide which seems to be getting wider as the campaign goes on is a direct result of the Clinton campaigns's efforts to insidiously inject race into all this?

Cause, effect? Duh!

Posted by David | March 11, 2008 10:47 PM

I don't get it. He wins the whitest of the white states but somehow the Southern Whites don't like him and so white people in general don't like him anymore? WY is all white and they just voted for him.

Southern states are racially polarized because of the long history of racism.

On a side note, Pat Buchanan said that Obama can't win Mississippi because of racist whites. So what??

Posted by Jay | March 11, 2008 10:52 PM

huckupchuck:

Well what I cannot understand is why you cannot see why Clinton has shown the ability to win contests that resemble the sort of contest that the general election will be. The general election is absolutely nothing like a caucus. The great enthusiasm among party activists, young people and red state Democrats will have comparatively little impact on the November election in terms of producing a margin of electoral votes. Contrarily to what some people claim here, Obama cannot make up for losing Ohio, Florida, Michigan or Pennsylvania with enough electoral votes elsewhere. He may be able to carry Colorado, but I see few other states where he has a real shot to makeup losses in larger states. I fear Obama will be too dependent on extraordinary African American turnout in large urban centers in order to carry the large swing states, even more so than the typical Democrat.

Let's be frank. Barack Obama is both gaining and losing votes due to his ethnicity. African Americans are drawn to him in large numbers, and some Whites and Latinos refuse to vote for him even in a Democratic primary. That phenomenon will obviously not disappear in a general election.

In a state like Pennsylvania what is likely to happen is Obama would do even better than Clinton in racking up huge margins in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, but then would lose the surrounding suburbs and exurbs, and be utterly demolished in the rural areas of the state. That outcome would be a loss. That would be repeated in Ohio, Missouri, Tennessee, Michigan, and Florida... states without large enough African American populations, or affluent liberals, to off-set his losses amongst blue-collar Democratic constituencies, including downscale white men.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 10:52 PM

Well what I cannot understand is why you cannot see why Clinton has shown the ability to win contests that resemble the sort of contest that the general election will be.

Tim, can you tell me a state that Clinton can win that Obama can not?

Can you tell me a state where Clinton has better coattails than Obama?

Posted by justinb | March 11, 2008 11:00 PM

And finally:

The winner of the pledged delegates is not the nominee.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 10:20 PM

Hmmm.. the number 2025 does come to mind...

But failing that, you'd accept the person who won more states, more delegates, and the popular vote? Small concerns, I know, but they do matter terribly in these election thingies....

Posted by morzer | March 11, 2008 11:05 PM

For the first time today, the majority of people supporting Obama said they would be dissatisfied with Clinton winning the nomination, and vice versa.

That is a huge change from the California debate when something like 80% of each's supporters had favorable opinions of the others.

This is now threatening the party's chances in November. The time has come for the automatic delegates to step in and end this thing.

Posted by Curtis | March 11, 2008 11:14 PM

Tim, you're still thinking like 51% victories are the only ones possible in the general. Come November, I strongly suspect you're going to learn otherwise.

It is true that some people won't vote for a black man. It is also true that some people won't vote for a woman. I tend to think that those two groups overlap greatly, and that those kind of voters are more drawn to the Republican party.

That being said, I first realized how wide Obama's appeal was when he won his Senate seat, and my good ol boy, cracker cousin from my southern Illinois hometown had nothing but good things to say about him because he had come downstate to campaign when he could have just stayed in Chicago and won it by working up the vote there.

Come to think of it, that seems to be how he's winning the primaries as well.

Posted by Doug | March 11, 2008 11:16 PM

Whites and Latinos refuse to vote for him even in a Democratic primary. That phenomenon will obviously not disappear in a general election.

This is a bizarre claim. I refuse to vote for Clinton in a primary, does that mean I won't vote for her in the general?

Actually, the answer to that is yes, but I think you get my point :)

Posted by justinb | March 11, 2008 11:17 PM

The time has come for the automatic delegates to step in and end this thing.

Posted by Curtis | March 11, 2008 11:14 PM

Ahem, super-delegates, please, Curtis, or my momma's gonna wash your mouth out with soap for that there Clinton talk!

Posted by yazzel | March 11, 2008 11:19 PM

For the first time today, the majority of people supporting Obama said they would be dissatisfied with Clinton winning the nomination, and vice versa.
There's a reason Mississippi is the birth place of the blues! But I agree, it's time for the supers to step in.

Posted by bjd | March 11, 2008 11:27 PM

Morzer:

Neither candidate can reach 2,025 with pledged delegates. It is not at all clear that Obama will be the popular vote winner, and the number of states won is not a relevant consideration. Bush won a lot more states than Gore or Kerry, should that have given him the victory in 2000/2004 even they had won Florida or Ohio?

justinb:

Did you actually read what I wrote? I clearly spelled out how and why I thought Obama could be vulnerable in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and Florida due to what I suspect will be an over-reliance on historic African American turnout in large urban centers like Cleveland, Philadelphia, and St Louis. I think he will due worse than Clinton in the suburbs and rural areas where white, working class voters predominate. Obama will outperform Clinton in places like North Dakota, Mississippi and Kansas, where he is not going to be carrying additional states. This is the electoral vote contest, not a popular vote contest.

I still think Obama will win the majority of the latino vote in November if he becomes the nominee, but I don't think it will be as strongly as Clinton would. I think he would lose white men by a greater margin, and will not do as well with white women, or older women. I don't believe he can offset that under-performance with more black and young votes.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 12:10 AM

You schizophrenic Democrats are a hoot!
Is this contest about "race" or "sex"? Whichever.....you will lose to "sanity"
come November. The angst of your comments
does my heart good. Hillary and Barack
are putting on the best "Punch and Judy"
show I've seen since I was in grade school.

Posted by interferon | March 12, 2008 12:38 AM

If Hillary Clinton gets (by hook or by crook) the nomination, I'll vote for Ralph Nader. Let the Democratic Party lose a few presidential elections and maybe they'll stop rewarding venal, amoral political hacks like the Clintons.

Posted by Dexter Morgan | March 12, 2008 12:39 AM

Well Dexter, that just demonstrates how irresponsible and naive some Obama supporters are.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 12:42 AM

This death struggle between your two best
and brightest is patently unfair. Hell, Hillary
outweighs the poor guy by 40 pounds!

Posted by interferon | March 12, 2008 12:52 AM

Tim K:

It is quite obvious that you are somewhat unreceptive to current information. Pablano, among others (fivethirtyeight.com) have shown that according to all conventional wisdom, Obama puts far more states into play than does Clinton, and in fact, is fairly likely to win even without winning such "big" states as Florida and Ohio.

Clinton is not. She is *reliant* on winning these states that have gone Republican in recent elections, and cannot win if she does not, whereas Obama clearly can and does.

This is demonstrated in the polls. Even in Ohio and Texas, by noticable margins voters in the Democratic primaries agreed Obama is most likely to defeat McCain the general election.

You cannot argue these polls. You cannot deny all the available data trending against Hillary. All you can do is deny that both the voters in these swing states, and the polls done both nationwide and in these states are completely incorrect. To do so reveals you for the illogical fool you are.

The race is over. The nomination has already been decided. The only issue that is left to be decided is how much Hillary will destroy the party and the inevitable candidate before the party leaders step in and stop her.

You are on a sinking ship and fervently denying that the ship is sinking. The rest of us laugh at you. Your candidate has run the worst campaign in the history of campaigns, and squandered a massive lead. The only thing that stops Obama from calling for her concession is his civility. I do not have such, and I call for your concession in your advocacy.

Posted by Racht | March 12, 2008 1:22 AM

Racht:

I don't care what the polls are saying, Obama is not going to carry North Dakota, and I doubt he'll be carrying Virginia.

Electability cannot be determined by a survey. Polls the day before the NH primary (not an election 8 months from now)showed Obama winning and he lost. We're talking about November and we don't even know what the matchup is going to be. Who is the illogical fool now? Come again?

I'll be the one laughing when you all realize that Obama isn't going to expand the electoral map or win some gigantic landslide and usher in a new era of hope and new politics.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 1:42 AM

Tim K says:
some Whites and Latinos refuse to vote for him

In the primary!!! When they have a choice of another Dem. In the general it will be a different story. Obama will be swept into office in a landslide.

Hang it up, Tim K, this thing is over.

Posted by g-man | March 12, 2008 1:52 AM

Okay then by your argument all those young people and blacks would be just as likely to turn out for Clinton.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 2:09 AM

"I'll be the one laughing when you all realize that Obama isn't going to expand the electoral map or win some gigantic landslide and usher in a new era of hope and new politics."

Defeatism IS hilarious. I can't wait for more of the same. The status quo in politics rules! That's why it's the status quo. I guess it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush. Should I start printing up the Jeb posters now? When does Jenna turn 35 anyway? There does seem to be a pattern developing....

"[Obama] is destroying the party because of his naked personal ambition."

That one is breath-taking. Even as a Obama supporter, I can acknowledge that the "bottom-up" rhetoric can wear a little thin at times. Though, personally, I do hope to participate in the expansion of the Peace Corps. that he's talking about (possibly getting some retroactive help on my student loans? hint, hint). But, "naked personal ambition"?

Listen, I'm from New York. I've voted for Clinton twice as Senator and would gladly do so again. I don't hold any ill will against her (even after some things in this campaign that I've found regrettable). But I'm not supporting her now because of the baggage she brings with her. It may not be her fault that 50% of the country loathes her, but they do. Again: it sucks, it's unfair, she's very smart, very capable, and - in other circumstances (like her not being married to one of the most polarizing presidents in recent history), she'd be great. The same goes for McCain. I know he has to toe the party line to some extent and play nice with W. But anybody who wants a third term of that should just hire a dominatrix and get what they really want. I'm sure my soon-to-be ex-governor can hook it up.

Posted by MD from NY | March 12, 2008 2:53 AM

I hate black people. I am a racist! Go Hillary!!!

Posted by robert ethan | March 12, 2008 2:58 AM

For those curious about Republicans, according to Ben Smith they were 11% of voters in the D primary, and went 85% for Clinton

Obama won Republicans 72-23 in Virginia and 70-30 in Wisconsin. As I recall, big O's tireless yammered endlessly about this strength of his.

So using your absurd logic, Hillary can win Mississippi. Whoohoo!

Without question, Obama should expect to lose far more white and HIspanics to McCain than Clinton would lose blacks.

Posted by Cal | March 12, 2008 3:19 AM

Tim K has demonstrated that he is impervious to things such as contradictory facts and even simple logic. He has his gut feelings about what will happen, and dammit, those are enough for him!

Anyway, I hope Wyoming and Mississippi have put the final nail in the coffin of the notion that momentum is playing any role in this race (which may be important to remember, if anyone tries to convince you that, say, Pennsylvania is somehow going to create momentum for the winner). The truth is that the coalitions and dynamics in this contest have been very stable, with the possible exception of a Limbaugh effect occurring now that McCain has won the Republican nomination. But since the overall dynamics so strongly favor Obama, and since so much of the contest is already in the bank anyway, that Limbaugh effect won't be enough to save Clinton.

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 4:31 AM

Tim K, you say Ohio, I say Missouri. Or Virginia. Those will also be swing states this year. They also fairly resemble the country as a whole demographically; in fact, Missouri's numbers are pretty much identical to Ohio's. Obama won Missouri narrowly, and Virginia easily.

Meanwhile, according to the match-up polls being done, Obama does significantly better against McCain than Hillary does. That's true for the national match-up polls, but also for the state-level match-up polls regularly done by Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, Survey USA and others, as again evidenced in the recent Survey USA 50-state poll. In particular, they show Obama outdoing Hillary in the "purple" or swing states: see Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington.

Posted by nimh | March 12, 2008 11:47 AM