can you please email this post to all the Superdelegates!?!?!?!

Thank you for the analysis.  When will people begin to wake up to the fact that Obama will lose us the next presidency?

I''m sick of hearing the words "kool-aid", "Obamabots" and the rest of the crap being put out.  But the FACT remains that we will not win this election with Obama as our candidate.  Sigh, etc. etc.

thanks for the good diary. some of us are actually interested in winning the election, not just the nomination.

Weren't the Clinton supporters the ones who were saying that polls are meaningless this far out?

Wait for "SUSA is a lousy polling company", "Every one of those is an outlier", "Polls mean nothing"..........

April 17 Data
Alabama
California
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Virginia
Wisconsin

March 19/20 Data
Washington

March 6 Data
All other states + DC

Wow.  Recommending.

remaining uncommitted supers wouldn't want to be known as "the supers that gave us McCain." Hey supers, listen to Dean and commit already. The country needs you!

SUSA is by far and away the best polling source. This is excellent news for HRC and shows that we do defintly have a better shot with her at the helm than Senator Obama. Let's go all the way to the White House--the only way to do that is with Hillary!

But, but, but - -

Isn't getting North Dakota more important than losing Pennsylvania?

(Like ND will really go Dem in Nov., anyhow.)

The TRADITIONAL definitions of red and blue are exactly as shown.
I don't know what idiot at Faux News decided to switch them ten years ago.

Throughout modern European history, red has been the color of revolution, socialists, leftists, and communists. Blue has been the color of royalists, reactionaries, ultra-nationalists, and rightists.

You know?
Terms like the "red scare"?
And "blue blood"?

Doesn't there have to be something called, you know, a general election before the Electoral College numbers are tallied?
And isn't the general election preceded by something called, you know, a Presidential campaign?

And isn't it a little silly, if not outright nuts, to be counting electoral votes 4 months before the Presidential campaign begins?

A significantly more serious and statistical analysis says Obama still has a slight edge:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Thanks Dave, for keeping us updated.

Still don't understand why the red/blue flip thing though lol

John

Thanks for the update.

shows Hillary Clinton LOSING to McCain, 257 to 281.

I guess that means we shouldn't have Hillary OR Obama as the candidate?  Based on the MyDD front-page calculator, at least.

Also, I looked around for this map on the SUSA site before I realized that the diary author made it up himself, or somebody made it up.  The last official SUSA calculated EV map was the March 6th one, shown here:

Back when this was posted, a month ago, showing Obama winning with more EV votes than Hillary, I didn't see any of the familiar faces here saying that Hillary should be the candidate even if she should get the most pledged delegates because Obama is the better candidate.  No, no, no.  But along comes a poll (in this case, a pasted-together poll) that is more favorable to your candidate, and that's sufficient reason for some to state unequivocally that Obama is going to LOSE us the election in November, but Hillary will win.

Pardon me if I don't take this graph as sufficient reason to turn the election process upside down.  Obama is going to win in November, and almost certainly with a different set of states than the ones posited in any of these graphics, either SUSA or MyDD (Jerome) or the diary author's.  

How can I be so sure?  It's April.  That's why.  The election is in November.  No poll can predict things seven months away.

Furthermore, Hillary and McCain are nearly broke, but Obama is rolling in chips.  Based on that much more reliable and predictive metric, it would seem Obama is most likely to win in November, but not even that is set in stone.

Yes, thank the Lord, at last we learn from the most reliable of all polling firms, just how badly Obama does in the general.  And this before being vetted, before being defined by the Radical Right, which the Clintons have already been for fifteen years.

The wonderful aspect about being seasoned in politics and well over fifty is that one has seen it all before.

Obama is the next McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, waiting in the wings.  His general election loss will not be close.  His support will likely cap at 38%--even if every college crowd participant and African-American in the country turns out for him.

I always knew that Howard Dean's reconstitution of the Democratic Party primary process would be the end of that party in presidential election terms.  Obama, if the nominee, is about to prove that fact.

But 2008 was, for the MSM, its pundits, and the Dean/Kennedy/Kerry/Bradley/Pelosi wing of the party was all about chasing away the Clintons.

Nothing more mattered to them--certainly not another general election loss--than defeating the Clintons.

Hillary and Bill know that the country, post-Clinton, is economically and diplomatically in ruins.

They understand that--whatever she must say now to prevent being further pummeled by the punditocracy--in fact, Obama cannpt win.  She must state "yes, he can," but that does not mean she actually thinks it.

As I have reported, I have never voted any other way but Democrat in my nearly fifty-five years.  Nor has, they have avowed, any member of my family whose experiences with Democratic politics goes back more than sixty years.

But for the first time in my life, I knows now that I will be voting McCain if Obama is the nominee.  As shall the members of my family.

In that sense, I think we well reflect the sentiments of our key bell-weather Ohio quite well.

It is the simply the obvious--as the most recent Democratic debate revealed--Obama is simply not ready for the presidency.

Was Bill Clinton in 1992?  Yes.  He had been multiple times elected governor of Arkansas.  And although a small state indeed, he was multiple times its governor nevertheless.

Is Hillary Clinton ready in 2008? Yes.  She has been her husband's ineluctable political advisor from the outset of his career, and evety Clinton analyst, both pro and con, knows that only too well.  And aside from her very politically involved eight years as First Lady, more importantly, she has done well by New York State, and was returned to office with 67% of its vote--her state has reaffirmed her worthiness there.

But Senator Obama had only a single year in the United States Senate before beginning his presidential run.  There is simply not enough of a national record.  This is simply not enough of a vetting for him to assume the presidency.

It is obvious, and his dismal performance in the recent debate--some four months after his Iowa caucus win--reveals just how disastrous he can be for the fall.

I believe the best for Senator Obama now is the vice-presidential nod.  Otherwise, he will never see the presidency.  And the Democratic Party will suffer a debacle of McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis proportions with him at the top of the ticket in the fall.

Then again, perhaps such a debacle matters far less to that Dean/Kennedy/Kerry/Bradley/Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party, and their sympathetic supporters in the MSM and the punditocracy than does driving out the Clintons.

That was the #1 objective of the 2008 campaign.  Time will tell if that objective succeeded.