Will someone please explain how you can win an election without winning Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania?

You need at least two out of three.  Here's where Quinnipiac has the race in these three states:

Florida: Clinton 44, McCain 42;  McCain beats Obama 46 - 37 percent

Ohio: Clinton 48, McCain 39; Obama gets 43 percent to McCain's 42 percent

Pennsylvania: Clinton 48, McCain 40; Obama leads McCain 43 - 39 percent.

Comments

[Jody]

When these polls start asking the question, "whichever candidate wins the Democratic nomination vs. McCain," then I think we will have a more complete picture of what's going on.

Everyone on both sides seems hellbent for leather to argue that the Democrats supporting the other guy are going to bail out if their guy wins the nomination. Show me the numbers that prove that, and that will hold up over the late summer and into fall, and I'll start being convinced.

In the meantime, I'd like to believe that the Democratic party is more robust than these sorts of polls suggest. And if it's not, and you don't think it's racism, why are fewer Clinton supporters going to rally behind Obama? What are the real differences in their actual policy proposals, please? Contrary to all this Internet bluster about change and progressivism, the last time I checked, they were both nice, solid Democrats with interesting, mostly-convergent ideas about what to do next.

Or, to put it another way, I don't think Obama is as ready to sell out Democrats as you sometimes seem to believe he would. Acknowledging that you need consensus to enact sweeping change don't make you a turncoat.

[John Petty]

I think a few will bail, but not too many. In a close race, however, you never know what could make a difference.

Obama originally said that some of his supporters wouldn't vote for Hillary, although some recent polls suggest that, if Obama is the nominee, more of Hillary's supporters might flake to McCain than if vice versa. The poll I saw said 19% of Obama's supporters would vote McCain and 28% of Hillary's would. Push comes to shove, I doubt if the numbers wind up being that high--hope not.

What can I say? I wish Obama were more of a Democrat. I realize that his strategy is to run as a consensus-builder, unifier, etc., but I don't like it that he says nice things about Reagan and blames the Dems equally with Reps for the toxicity of Washington, D.C.

I'm trusting that he doesn't really mean this and that he's just saying it as a campaign tactic.

Thanks for your comments.

[Jody]

You know, I have never read that series of speeches as some sort of grand claim about Reagan's worthiness -- just about his effects on the nation. Do you disagree that the Reagan Revolution had profound effects, and was the most important realignment/alteration-of-attitude movement in the recent past?

I mean, come ON, Bill Clinton was a centrist Democrat and a crucial figure in the DLC precisely because HE BELIEVED that. Why was it good for Bill Clinton to believe that the Democratic party needed to be more centrist and to acknowledge the power of the Reagan revolution, but a bad thing for Obama to say the same thing?

And frankly, no matter how much the K street project and the Limbaugh-O'Reilly machine are evil (and they are, A LOT), there's a powerful sense all over the country that EVERYONE in DC is corrupt, regardless of party affiliation. That's one of those standard lines that all "outsiders" use -- go back and look at Jimmy Carter's campaign if you doubt me. Or Andrew Jackson's, for that matter.

[John Petty]

No, I don't agree that Reagan was all that important. The person who really changed the political landscape was Nixon. He's the one who ran on a "southern strategy" in 1968. Reagan merely continued the Nixon strategy. Reagan was the beneficiary of Nixon, not the originator of something new.

I understand what Obama is doing, and why he's doing it. It's an effective strategy for him. I just don't like it.

The reason I don't is because I think what we need is a party victory this year. The Democrats, as Democrats, need to the defeat the Republicans. That is crucial to establishing a progressive governing majority and passing a progressive agenda.

As always, I appreciate your thoughts.

[Jody]

Well, poli sci folks and historians both disagree with your take on it (Nixon raised tax rates, implemented major environmental protection legislation, and was not a fan of the Goldwater branch of the party) but there's certainly lots of room for disagreement here.

I don't understand Obama to be repudiating a "Party Win" in 2008. One of the reasons why I support Obama is because I believe he has the capacity to expand the Democratic Congressional majority to a larger extent than Clinton. And I see a lot of similarities between his rhetoric and that of DLC-leader Bill Clinton in 1992, so I tend to wonder why certain groups of Clinton supporters are so upset by it.

But again, reasonable folks will disagree.

[John Petty]

Well, that's the counter-argument. I admit that. If Obama turns out to be the nominee, I certainly hope you are right. I'm just more skeptical about it than you are.

I'm not upset about it. I understand why he's taking that tack. It's an effective political strategy.

But I don't think it's true that Democrats and Republicans are even close to being equally to blame for the mess we're in. That's not true.