I've been tuned out of this political stuff b/c it's just too darn early. Oh, and Michigan's primary is fucked up. Thanks, douches! Let's spend $10 million on a primary where most D candidates aren't even on the ballot and our delegates won't be seated at the convention! Lovely.

That said, I'm totally jazzed about Obama.

Can he beat McCain?

Is America -- fat, bloated, disinterested, inner rotted, Jesus-besotted, 24-hour-news-cycle-numb America -- capable of electing THIS MUCH change?

It's like going into a bar and ordering a martini, and the bartender brings you an entire bottle of gin, a bottle of vermouth and an uprooted olive tree. Too much? Will we rush to the convention and anoint Obama as our standard-bearer, only to wake up the morning after the election to find that lizard brain racism will have bubbled up in voting booths around the country?

I don't have the answers, but I've seen Dems in the past elect feel-good (or at least sound-good) candidates, only to lose by huge margins to a same-old/same-old establishment Republican.

I hope for our sake we nominate a winner, and don't spend the next four years praying for the health of a few Supreme Court members.

I'll be watching football, but I'm counting on you to keep me informed.

At the transition time, ALL the candidates will NOT appear on stage. Kucinich and others were boxed out for not being mass-media enough. These corporate pricks would throw Britney and Paris on the stage if they could get away with it.

And before I get flamed to a carbonic crispy -- the fact I have to balance wanting someone like Obama to win against a fear of racism pisses me off to no end.

I wish it wasn't a consideration when it comes to considering whether or not to support his nomination. But it is a consideration. And if you think it isn't, you've been sniffing too many of the patchouli perfume strips in your Mother Jones magazines.

@5 - He doesn't need a strong majority to win - he needs a plurality, nothing more. I say the climate is such that a good candidate with a good campaign can get that, with or without a vagina and/or dark skin. The segment of the population that simply won't vote for a black man, period, is sufficiently small and in a lot of places that don't particularly matter.

(On top of which, for fuck's sake, if we aren't ready for a black candidate now, and one with as much apparent appeal as Obama, we never will be. The only thing that will get the US any more comfortable with African-Americans in places of power will be seeing them there, finding that the world actually doesn't go to shit, and then getting over it.)

(Actually, he doesn't even need a plurality.)

I must agree with TSM...I'm thinking the states that won't vote for him because he's black would vote Republican anyways...

I wouldn't be so sure. The blackest states in the union are currently the most Republican. Obama is the ONLY Democrat with a prayer of taking at least a few electoral votes out of the South -- though of course a Democrat could win without them. Obama's race might hurt him in some places -- but possibly just as much in Democratic places as Republican ones. Whether that's enough to undercut the Republicans who would cross over and vote for Obama -- a substantial number, by the looks of it -- I dunno.

that poll sucks. what about edwards or richardson? edwards got second place for fucks sake.

@10--If you keep clinking the links you'll see that Edwards polled 19% and Richardson 8%.

I, too, worried that America may yet be too racist to elect a black president. But I'm actually encouraged by the Iowa caucuses. Iowa is overwhelmingly white, and is a farm state. Maybe not as racist as some of the Bible Belt states, but not exactly a progressive state either. Yet they managed to get past the racial issues, and by a wide margin. And democrats out-caucused republicans roughly two to one. Had it been the general election, it seems obvious Obama would have carried Iowa handily, despite being black.

It is beginning to look like Obama is a more formidable candidate than some people give him credit for. And either this country isn't as racist as it once was, or his personality overcomes the mild racism that most people have.

I also read an analysis that postulated this idea: while Obama is technically black, he doesn't seem black. He is well educated. He is descended from newer African immigrants, not older African slaves. His speech and mannerisms are more like whites. Politically, he's fairly centrist for a democrat. In short, he looks black, but acts white. He isn't as threatening to mildly racist whites as, say, Jesse Jackson would be.

So, yes, there are a few racist crackers who won't vote for a black man, no matter what. But there are a lot of people who are only mildly racist, that seem to be able to ignore Obama's blackness and vote for him anyway.

1. Average of NH polls -- see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html

Trend to Obama is very strong (average is he's up 2.7%, he's up 12% in latest poll and HRC is up only in the polls at least partially prior to IA).

2. Can a black guy win?

It's the electoral college; majority or plurality nationwide is irrelevant.
You can play electoral college math at http://www.270towin.com/

I'd say the Democrats will get the NE (DC and everything north of there); CA, HI, OR, & WA; and MN, WI, MI, and Ill. (but not AK, IN).
If we also get Ohio or Forida, we win.

So any of the three can win.

To win convincingly we need states like IA, MO, VA, WVa, Ark., LA, NM, Colo., NV.
The swing voters in these states are, I think, white males who go hunting and whom the Democratic party has "lost" in the last few decades.
Who can get them?

Edwards -- economic populism + he is a Southerner. The only D presidents since Kennedy have been Southerners. But he's rich now and taking federal funds means he goes silent for a period after the convention.

Hillary -- these swing voters hate her. She'd have to become a communicator like Bill to get these states.
Obama -- If these swing voters do what they normally do -- vote against the northern, urban, super liberal dude -- he can't win these states.
He'd have to inspire them so much they change their basic worldview, giving them hope where previously there was fear. If Obama can do that, it is a new era.

I think any Democrat has a chance of winning any state that Bush won by less than 10%. That's a 5% swing from the GOP to the Democrats.

Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, Arkansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, and Florida are all in that range. IA, NM, CO, NV, and OH are all within 5 points (FL is just outside that range). A conservative estimate of the likely result in November is the Kerry states plus these latter 5 states. I personally think any of the top three Democrats could win all of these states. Counting just the five states within 5% of 2004, that's 298 electoral votes. Including VA, MO, AR, and FL, that's 355 electoral votes. Even subtracting Ohio and Iowa from the conservative scenario results in 271 votes and a Democratic victory. The key is the three western states of New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada.

So, based on that, the GOP candidates that are worrisome are McCain (who would have a good chance at those three western states) and Huckabee, whose populist appeal might threaten some of the Midwest states. The South isn't really competitive yet except at the margins, no matter who the nominee is.

Exactamente!