South Dakota for Hillary Announces Endorsement of 41 Former State Legislators and Constitutional Officers

Officials with over 330 years of combined public service to the state of South Dakota endorse Hillary

The Clinton campaign today announced the endorsement of 41 former South Dakota state legislators and constitutional officers. These officials, with over 330 years of combined experience in public service to the state of South Dakota, endorsed Hillary because of her readiness to serve on day one and her plans to jumpstart the economy and help consumers struggling with rising gas prices.

And the plot thickens.  Are we going to start seeing more endorsements of on-the-ground troops to keep this competitive?

What I find next most interesting is how our elected officials, the Dem. leadership and all the pundits seem COMPLETELY oblivious to these numbers and thoughts.  Why, I ask?  

Is the DLC afraid to acknowledge that the favored Obama is not exactly the presumptive GE winner they thought he could/would be?

And, is it not obvious that a Unity Ticket would erase any so-called "divide" and create the largest, most efficient Democratic Party we've seen in decades?!?

What if...Obama loses the white vote by the same percentage to McCain as he does to Hillary?

With the Big State Electoral Vote losses assured, (Florida, Texas), with the South Already solidly McCain's, and necessary Democratic states like Pennsylvania, Michigan long shots for Obama, that leaves a lot of western states Obama has to carry, with or without Hillary.

The best thing that could happen is Barr siphoning off GOP votes from people who (mistakenly) assume McCain is a "moderate".

This is the reason mccain is tied with BO in polling here. MA is in play if god forbid he is the nom.... so pull those EV right out of his lineup. Really - that is something that is really true. deval backlash is strong here.

Well, emergencies always happen.  And they're never the one you plan for.

I don't think Obama can keep it together through the summer.  I think McCain will lose his temper and all-heck will break loose.

Obama may (or may not) reach the delegate threshold and be crowned by the media and DNC, but we have an unprecedented situation here. I don't think the Party has ever given the nomination to someone who didn't win the popular vote in the primaries.

Link

Before the 2006 elections the news cycles were dominated by wave after wave Republican corruption, several which ended in convictions and prison sentences.  That was a definite boost to the Dems in 2006.  Now with the impeachment threatened for the Democratic AG, the perception of GOP as the party of corruption will fade.

I don't like him as a candidate myself.

I question whether Strickland could deliver OH or even, for that matter, whether Arkansas would vote for Obama even with Clinton on the ticket (though I suppose it is possible).

IMHO, the biggest reason for Obama to put Clinton on the ticket is that it puts Florida an Ohio in play for Obama in a way they are not now.  If he wins those two states, we will see an electoral landslide.

To be frank, whomever the VP candidate is will have wield brass-knuckles - not just grudgingly, but almost with a gleeful relish - in the campaign.  And, at the same time, have to both help unite the party and energize the party base (everyone who's been at each others' throats for a couple months now).  Can Strickland do that?  Or is he a genial, smiling Edwards (who would have been the better Pres. nominee in 04, according to many, myself included) who will get eaten alive by the sneering thug the Republicans are sure to nominate?

Turnout in both states will be huge.  Both states will likely see significant (+10-20%) continued increases in voter registration.  Talk radio is big in NC, and it has spent the last 8 years vilifying McCain, and here comes Bob Barr, who has been its darling during the same span of time.  He'll easily siphon off 5% of McCain's vote.

That depends on Mccain winning Ohio.

First, race is a factor and so is gender.  The primary results in several states demonstrate that. How would it be perceived in the general election having a black man as the top of the ticket and a white man at the bottom?  It may not matter at all which white man. Especially if the Obama/? team is running against two white men. But a white woman at the bottom of the ticket may be acceptable in the GE.

1. How many voters won't vote for Hillary because she is a woman

2. How many voters won't vote for Obama because he is black?

A. Hillary has certainly smashed her way through with "working class" whites (sorry I hate the term since good entry level factory jobs went away...1972 and on...)

B. Obama HAS won white voters earlier in the season.

But does anyone have an idea of hard core "white male only" voters?

I know gender/race present a dynamic situation and I know the MSM plays a role, but are there any good estimates?

I still get angry with people who make racist jokes because they think I am white and on their side. The people are NOT Democrats in my experience, but in 2008 how many Bias Voters are out there for each issue?

So MA, NY and CA will not be in play, although the Republican spin machine will try to trick the Democrats into spending excessive resources in those places (Rove's attempted California Jedi mind trick in 2000 lost Dubya the election until Poppy's Old Boy Network bailed him out again -- Dubya should have been trying to close the deal in Florida).

As much as I respect John Edwards, I could not bring myself to support him because of his inability to deliver his home state (much less any other border state) in 2004. And while he has been airbrushed out of our Party family portraits, it still must be said that Lyndon B. Johnson delivered Texas to JFK in 1960. For those of you old enough to remember, that was quite a feat, given the virulent anti-Catholicism in much of the State. And Walter Mondale was a big help to Jimmy Carter in the Rust Belt in 1976.

Poblano's simulation engine has produced some fascinating results. According to his current data, the model predicts that Clinton would win four states against McCain that Obama is favored to lose (FL, AR, WV, OH). Meanwhile, Obama wins eight states where Clinton would likely fail (MI, WI, IA, CO, NM, NV, WA, OR).

Link here

This is a pretty good model, based on a lot of the demographic information you are concerned about.  Poblano's, an Obama supporter, is occasionally  skewed a couple of points towards Obama, however.

To quote again:

In the Frequently Asked Questions section of his site, Poblano lists the demographic variables that his model takes into account in each state. Included are John Kerry's 2004 performance, the candidates' respective fundraising efforts, and other factors such as income, race, religion, age, and education level.

These projections illustrate the extraordinary level of flexibility enjoyed by the Obama campaign as they head towards the general election. Rather than focusing on simply winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, they have a big enough war chest and a broad enough base of support to create all sorts of contingencies in case one of those typical battleground states goes for McCain.

"If Obama wins the traditional big three, he's going to have a tough time losing anyway," Poblano said. "But now you give him a margin for error where if something goes wrong in Ohio - if you're winning North Carolina and Iowa and Colorado, it's a very robust scenario for him with a lot of Plan A's, Plan B's, and Plan C's to win the election."

It would be interesting to see how - and why - you differ from some of Poblano's demographic estimatations - run through 10,000 simulations.