Virginia appears off the table. Granted, he's a little stronger in the pacific NW, but how is that a "different map?"

None of the new stuff he's supposed to win makes up for the loss of Florida, let alone Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Obama gets his clock cleaned because even with the youth vote, the black vote, the 'intelligentsia' vote, middle America defeats him.

What I can't figure out is how Obama's characterization of 'bitter and clingy' middle America and then Axelrod on NPR yesterday openly dismissing the white working class as not voting for Democrats anyway...where they plan on getting the votes they need to actually win.

Michigan is becoming Clinton's secret weapon

Detroit News April 24, 2008

"While all eyes were locked on Pennsylvania for the last six weeks, Clinton was quietly amassing delegates in the Wolverine State. And she was rewarded this past weekend with a significant victory at the district conventions.

This development naturally has been overshadowed by her big win Tuesday night in Pennsylvania. But the race for the Democratic nomination wasn't decided then and won't be by the remaining contests -- not North Carolina, Indiana or even Guam -- because the real fight is over delegates. And Michigan remains a key battleground.

On Aug. 25, Clinton will march into the national convention in Denver stronger than most people realize, thanks to her aggressive ground game in Michigan.

Buoyed by party elder support, Clinton seems likely to capture more than 60 percent of the state's 128 pledged delegates, according to an analysis by the Michigan Information & Research Service. Including the 28 superdelegates, which lean heavily in the New York senator's favor, she could win upward of 70 percent of delegates, provided that they're seated with full voting power.

That depends on the Democratic National Committee, which punished Michigan for leapfrogging the primary schedule. There is no deal yet to seat the delegation. But the Clinton camp is working overtime to ensure the elected slate is sent. Keep in mind that Clinton won 55 percent to uncommitted's 40 percent since Obama wasn't on the ballot. He has pushed for a 50-50 percent delegate split, but that proposal hasn't gained traction.

It's becoming apparent that Obama should have consented to a revote here. He certainly wouldn't have lost by 15 percentage points or more; polls have pegged the pair in a dead heat. But Obama seemed spooked that Clintonites put forth the plan and the money, so he quashed the do-over last month.

Now Obama is paying the price in delegates, starting with the Michigan Democratic Party's 15 district conventions on Saturday. The Clinton battle plan was flawlessly executed with an eye toward a contested convention. Their delegate roster is crammed with big names like former Gov. Jim Blanchard and Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero.

"We wanted to pick people who would be loyal to Hillary, who would commit to her through multiple ballots," Blanchard says.

Michiganders for Obama, a ragtag group of new volunteers, triumphed in turnout Saturday but were steamrolled by the Clinton machine. Obama has proved to be a master of organization, but he made a tactical error not to plump up his skeletal apparatus in Michigan.

As a result, he will almost certainly fall short of the 36 uncommitted delegates selected. Volunteers argued that only Obama supporters should be uncommitted delegates, but they were outmaneuvered. About half of the uncommitted delegates reserved the right to vote for Clinton, depending on whom their unions eventually endorse.

While union officials flatly deny they're in the tank for Clinton, Obama supporters point out that United Auto Workers Legislative Coordinator Nadine Nosal was elected in the 8th District as an alternate Clinton delegate. That underscores the fact that Obama's speech to the Detroit Economic Club last year, calling for higher federal fuel economy standards, went over with labor leaders like a lead balloon.

In May, the party's labor-heavy, Clinton-friendly central committee chooses the remaining 45 delegates, setting up a scenario of more uncommitted delegates switching to Clinton.

Given her narrow path to the nomination, Clinton and her aides have argued that pledged delegates are fair game to flip. Although they've since backed away from such statements, the Michigan delegate conventions show the Clinton delegate strategy is being set into motion. What this could mean is four very interesting days in Denver. Although the odds still favor Obama -- who leads in delegates, the popular vote and states won -- he has to be a bit rattled over two losses in one week.

  And he's a weaker candidate than he was before all the news broke too.

  Breakdowns from exit polling in Pennsylvania (affected by all that news including ClingGate) show that approximately 25% plan to vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee and about 18% plan not to vote at all for the presidential slot and, worse, may stay home.  

  Try the math on that when taking for granted that Obama would take the states Clinton would.  This is too much like his statements earlier that he would get Clinton's supporters but it wasn't clear she would get his.

The only certainty in the electibility sstory is that Obama will lose in a landslide because of OH, PA and FL and because his hate campaign that will keep many (true) progressives at home. Hillary may also lose, not in a landslide, due to Obama's goons voting McCain.

It is the only race I've always thought the Dems would certainly lose, and nothing I have seen in the last 18 months has changed my mind.

Then we get to the pretty heavily Republican states like Utah, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho. This is where the argument for Obama's greater electability in the general election totally baffles me. I can't see one position he has taken or anything in his approach or ideology that would offer any advantage in these states. Plus, let's be honest, he's a pretty urban guy, not someone it is easy for people in this region to identify with and relate to. As my husband, who is from Montana, says, "God love 'em, they think he's a muslim."

McGovern won all of the heavily Republican states West of the Mississippi in the primaries in '72 -- with the same strategy; young voters, independents and moderate Republicans. But those wins proved meaningless for the general.

For awhile, they will be "testing" balloons to see what gets shot down fast.  

I do not see Obama as particularly strong in the West, except for Washington and CO.  She won the key Latino swing states.  He did well enough, but that Latino vote is the key; and he hasn't done well with that group at all.  It's suspect to assume those votes will transfer to him.

I think she is expanding her base.  That was why Penn. was so important.  She won 2 out of the 4 upper-class suburbs of Philly.  That's significant.  That's cutting into his base.

"in 2004, Kerry lost Ohio to Bush and in turn, the White House. However, it's important to note that in 2000, Ohio was not "the swing state"

Winning the general without Pennsylvania seems exceedingly tough to me.  Obama isn't going to beat McCain in this state.   He's too exotic.   PA voters will take the devil they know.

With Hillary, we've got some states that are more of a sure thing.  I'd love to see us expand our base, but not at the expense of losing the election in '08.  The best possible circumstance would be to have both of them on the ticket, with Hillary at the top of the ticket, and Obama positioned to take over after her term for another eight years of Democratic rule in the WH.  That would give Clinton a chance to provide the strong dem base in '08, the tactical expertise while we're doing the massive clean up, and it gives Obama sixteen rather than eight years in the executive branch, gives him a chance to develop his more strategic expertise and gives us all the advantage of his unifying plans while still getting the benefit of the Clintons' ability to get things done quickly.

Since you have credibilty and stature in the Blogosphere, I think if you called for the Super Delegates to consider how much Obama would lose with less affluent whites, and women, maybe some of them would break for Hillary.

I know you favor a Unity Ticket, but I think Obama won't go along. But If Hillary wins before the convention, offers Obama the slot (which he turns down), then Bill can travel the country praising Obama and making people believe that he himself was for Obama all along.

I really think an early knock out, even this late, will give Bill a chance to so confuse everyone and charm them that Hillary will have a real chance in November.

Unlike many here, I think the less affluent white voters will respond well to appeals by a former POW, I doubt Hillary can carry them. But they hate Obama before he speaks.

I think (like some bloggers) McCain will run his Rope-a-dope strategy of attacks by surrogates on Bill Clinton's pardons and other issues followed by St. John asking for a more Civil Tone; that WILL hurt Hillary.

However, Hillary should get a massive turn out of woman over 50 to counter the way Reagan Democrats always vote to shoot themselves in national elections.

The question for me is would it be easier for Obama to get the rural white vote or easier for Clinton to get the AA/city suburban vote.  My guess is it would be easier for Clinton to get that vote.  Axelrod seems to be suggesting that vote is no big deal.  Huh.

She increased her lead in the suburbs, winning 2 of 4 suburban counties in Philly.  That was totally unexpected.

Look at the map of the vote in Missouri.  Obama beat Clinton by a very small margin (49% - 48%), winning in 6 counties.  She prevailed in the other 108 counties.