I absolutely agree that this poll must have been much more expensive. I am just very happy that someone did it anyway. (And very happy you pointed it out to me).

“Barack Obama (D) currently holds a seven-point advantage over John McCain (R), 46% to 39%. However, if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, McCain will begin the race with a fourteen point advantage, 49% to 35%”

As for Ohio, the latest poll I found was from Univ of Cincinnati (2/27):

Obama (D) 48%, McCain (R) 47%
McCain (R) 51%, Clinton (D) 47%

These are just isolated snapshots.

Obama’s turnout numbers in VA were tremendous. Here’s a Survey USA poll from 2/19 from VA:

48% McCain
45% Clinton
7% Undecided

45% McCain
51% Obama
4% Undecided

VA and CO have been trending blue for the past four years.

Clinton will definitely have to win 2/3 of the “swing states”– it’s her only chance, and if she wins FL or OH, it will be by a microscopic margin. Assuming she can “hold” places like Wisconsin.

Obama has other avenues to the nomination. VA/CO/IA is plausible.

Plus, with CLinton, the GOP has the luxury of targeting their limited resources into far fewer states, since Clinton doesn’t broaden the map. If it’s all about OH and FL, that helps them immeasurably.

And I am not saying that Obama is not more likely to win VA than Clinton. However, I just don’t know that either of them will beat McCain in VA.

Last time, Bush won VA by 8 points, by 5 points in CO, and he did squeak out the 7 electoral votes by 1% in IA.

I think it is much easier to win the states Kerry won + OH than it will be to win the states Kerry won + VA/IA/CO.

Last election, the big talk was who could win 2/3 of the 3 swing states. Do you think that the situation has changed that much?

Plus, Obama would be better able than Clinton to comfortably hold Wisconsin (which has been ultra close the last two cycles) and Minnesota– (if Mac picks Pawlenty for Veep).

“McCain thinks he may be able to grab California” The Goop candidates always say this… and get trounced. I hope Mac goes all out in Cali.

Cali, NY, and Mass are not in play (even though MSNBC reported last night that McCain thinks he may be able to grab California). That being the case, Democrats do need to win those states to win the presidency. The fact that they will likely win them doesn’t change the need to win them.

Ohio is in play, and Hillary won by 10 points. While the results don’t show that Hillary will win Ohio in the fall (if she would get the nomination) it does show that Hillary did a better job of getting out the vote in a swing state that the Democrats need to win iin 2008 (and, ignoring voting controversy, failed to win in 2004).

“And if “electability” is an issue for Obama, I don’t think a comparison to Jindal is very persuasive.”

The comparison to Jindal was not meant to show how electable Obama is. It is meant to show that people blindly following an idea without thinking about the consequences of their actions can have disastrous effects. People blindly followed Jindal as a vehicle for change and are now having buyer’s remorse because he has shown that he is the same old politician. People who blindly follow Obama, someone who has shown no ability to get more votes than Clinton in the important swing states, and his being a vehicle for change could leave us with the result of having someone representing the Democratic Party who does not do the best job in bringing out voters in the states we need the Democratic candidate to win. How smart will it be if Hillary wins primaries in OH, PA, and FL and Obama is the nominee?

Now, I understand it is highly possible that people who come out for Clinton may very well still come out for Obama. It is also possible that people who come out for Obama may come out against Clinton. If I owned a crystal ball, this would be much easier. However, I can only go on the evidence that exists and that evidence shows me that Clinton does a better job at getting out the vote in swing states.

“The Ohio results should give Obama supporters pause, to be sure. But extrapolating GE results from primary performances is a very shaky way to analyze such things.”

I don’t recall saying that someone would definitively win or lose in the general election based on these results. What I did say is that Obama supporters in the upcoming primaries need to consider the ramifications of their actions and they need to consider the idea that we need to elect the person who is more likely to win the swing states and not the person who may be their first choice. If voting for their first choice causes their worst choice to get elected, then their vote really didn’t really do them any good now did it?

Now, another thing that I have been considering is that Obama could win those states that Democrats typically don’t win IF his base comes out in force and Republican voters stay home because they are not excited about McCain. Is that possibility worth the gamble? I don’t think so.

Also, the GOP primary vote total is rather meaningless, since most viewed the contest as already decided. This wasn’t an energized GOP electorate. These data points do not mean that Clinton would take Ohio from McCain in the fall.

And if “electability” is an issue for Obama, I don’t think a comparison to Jindal is very persuasive.

The Ohio results should give Obama supporters pause, to be sure. But extrapolating GE results from primary performances is a very shaky way to analyze such things.