You make excellent points about California, Jeffersonian. He's been trending upwards there, recent polls show Obama beating HRC there if it were re-ran, and most think he would have beat her there intially if it weren't for early voting when many still went along with the media narrative Hillary was unbeatable.

Fester and others have attempted to post real data about the complex new electoral map we're looking at and the challenges we're facing. I've tried to talk about Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Arizona, Kansas, and South Dakota (due to the break up of 2 particular Congressional districts there.) We've tried to tell them about the burgeoning youth vote, why we think we can hold the Latino vote (it also has to do with the high number of young Latinos), the AA vote and hopefully some of Hillary's vote. We've even admitted Obama basically is down to either just a Pennsylvania or Ohio problem depending on which he feels he needs.

They just don't want to engage in it. They're convinced we're looking at the same electoral map we were in 1956. This recent bent about Kennedy winning West Virginia just further proves the point to me, that they're only even now progressing to the 1960 map. There's just no point now. There convinced Obama can't win no matter what we tell them.

Although it wasn't in a complimentary way, so I'll leave that one alone.

No I don't think he can snap his fingers and get states. You're right to call me on that. I also don't think anything's for sure.

But I don't think he's going to lose California and New York as some people charge. And I find the notion that he's going to lose 30 states laughable. I also find the idea he's a secret Muslim, which some seem to believe, crazy.

The point is he's as electable as any other candidate, IMHO because of the map. To me too many people in the official Clinton campaign are operating on the notion the map will stay static, the same as it was in 2004. This just isn't going to happen for a myriad of reasons, starting with the war, Bush's huge unpopularity, the fact that Republicans are losing districts they've never lost before (the one in Illinois they held for 30 years and the one in Louisiana for 20 years) and the fact he turns out the one segment of the population that could significantly tip the scales simply because it hasn't been voting up until now (young people.)

People over 29 have been voting somewhere along the clip of 61-63%. People 24-29, only 40%. 18-24 it's even lower. So I think, to a certain degree, he changes the map.

But you're right to call me on any notion I may have been transmitting, that it will be easy. Or any notion that he doesn't have a serious problem getting either Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida. He does. That's where the problem lies. He's GOT to get one of those.

Although it wasn't in a complimentary way, so I'll leave that one alone.

No I don't think he can snap his fingers and get states. You're right to call me on that. I also don't think anything's for sure.

But I don't think he's going to lose California and New York as some people charge. And I find the notion that he's going to lose 30 states laughable. I also find the idea he's a secret Muslim, which some seem to believe, crazy.

The point is he's as electable as any other candidate, IMHO because of the map. To me too many people in the official Clinton campaign are operating on the notion the map will stay static, the same as it was in 2004. This just isn't going to happen for a myriad of reasons, starting with the war, Bush's huge unpopularity, the fact that Republicans are losing districts they've never lost before (the one in Illinois they held for 30 years and the one in Louisiana for 20 years) and the fact he turns out the one segment of the population that could significantly tip the scales simply because it hasn't been voting up until now (young people.)

People over 29 have been voting somewhere along the clip of 61-63%. People 24-29, only 40%. 18-24 it's even lower. So I think, to a certain degree, he changes the map.

But you're right to call me on any notion I may have been transmitting, that it will be easy. Or any notion that he doesn't have a serious problem getting either Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida. He does. That's where the problem lies. He's GOT to get one of those.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/black-youth-and-latino-turnout-and.html

It does a good breakdown on what we're talking about vis-a-vis voting trends, and explains how (some) of his weaknesses could be offset with younger and Latino voters (many of whom are young.)

But let me be frank and honest: If you think things are going to stay the same, then yes Hillary is more electable. Not by a lot, not by as much as some would have us think, but yes slightly more electable just based on the 2004 map.

Also Obama maintains that serious OH/PA/FL problem. But other than that it's just not as hard for him as some would have you believe. And that's hardly enough to make him unelectable.