Thanks for rebutting that earlier idiocy. It bothered me too.

Annie, if you haven't already, you might want to check out the posts (7, 12, & 15) in Eli's "As The Clinton Campaign Turns" post below. If true, NAFTAgate will be a huge mess for Clinton.

Annie, explain to me why we're supposed to ignore the Rasmussen poll in NJ that has McCain outperforming Obama?

Thank you, Annie. Using the primary election as a yardstick about how EITHER Clinton or Obama can do in the fall is a canard. These are PRIMARIES for a PARTY, not a rough draft of a general election.

That said, the fact that the Democrats are having RECORD turnout this year, as well as attracting many independents and even Republicans to vote for their candidates, speaks well for EITHER candidate's chances of winning--in small AND large states alike.

It's funny how Clinton rushed to hit Obama over the back channel calls to Canada knowing damn well it was coming right back at her later on. Say anything to win Ohio now and who cares what people say about you later. If they hold it against her, she'll just whine that they are being unfair.

Classic Hillary scorched earth.

Once Obama names Richardson as his VP or something then he will take NM and the Hispanic vote.

In your face Hillary!! =)

There is another poll, having Mc Cain beating Obama in Florida by 6 points .... the glam does not export well it appears

SurveyUSA: Hillary And Obama Win Electoral College In Distinct Ways

@3--no need to ignore the Rasmussen poll, but you can also look at the new ABC News/WaPo poll that shows Clinton or Obama beating McCain.

Touche.

the other issue is that there are simply too many battleground states to effectively make a case for one candidate or the other. winning ohio doesnt matter if you lose WI and MN. losing Ohio doesnt matter if you hold on to WI and MN and pick up VA and IA. there really are so many possibilities that the focus on Ohio and Florida alone is going to hurt more than help.

as if Hispanics are going to vote Republican - you know, the fence, deportations, etc.

Richardson is dull - Obama needs a woman, duh.

@3 That's the same Rasmussen outfit that shows Rossi effectively tied (a 1 point lead) with Gregoire and McCain beating both Dems in Washington.

@9, I was specifically referring to Annie's statement, "California, New York, and New Jersey are not general election battlegrounds."

I would argue that a traditionally blue state that right now has the Republican Nominee winning against the presumptive Dem Nominee is um ... the definition of a battleground state.

@3: That poll is interesting, but it included only 500 likely voters and the spread was 2 points--well within the +/- 4 point margin of error. Two other recent NJ head-to-heads that surveyed significantly more voters show Obama beating McCain by 5-7 points.

@12, so you don't give it any credence? I'm confused. Didn't Gregoire barely win her last election?

Just to clarify, I think Rasmussen is useful, but you always have to look at the margin of error. In the poll you cite, McCain and Obama are actually tied; neither beats the other.

Annie, in the Farleigh Dickinson poll you cited, the pollster had this to say, "In both cases, the Democrat beat McCain by just more than the margin of error."

Still sounds like a battleground state, no?

@16, Annie that's fine. Obama and McCain are statisticall tied. I understand that. But here's what you said:

"California, New York, and New Jersey are not general election battlegrounds. Only a completely incompetent Democrat would lose those states, and neither Obama nor Clinton is incompetent."

My argument is that New Jersey is a battleground state in this election. It shouldn't be, but according to the polls we have right now, it is. You can't dismiss the state as automatically in the blue column.

What about margin of error don't you understand? If it's beyond the margin of error, you can say one candidate beats the other. If it's within, you can't.

No, I don't think New Jersey is a battleground state. Rasmussen has it at "Likely D," just like Washington. Obama would have to really screw up to lose NJ, just as Clinton would have to really screw up to lose WA. The "Leans D" or R and "Toss-Up" states are the real battlegrounds.

Thank you, Annie, for throwing some sense into the argument.

As for New Jersey, the election is a LONG ways away, and these polls mean nothing. Yes, New Jersey is a "battleground", which is why people ought to be thinking of ways to win it. Clinton isn't doing that; she's taking it for granted, and by the sound of it actively campaigning for McCain now.

If the Democrats are smart, they'll win all of these states and more; McCain has already shown that he's running as "Bush's Third Term", which makes him an easy target. And his sloppy kisses to that rabid anti-Catholic bigot aren't doing him any favors in New Jersey.

More than twice as many Democrats as Republicans voted in the primary on February 5th.

I understand margin of error perfectly well. I was QUOTING THE POLLSTER with that comment about the Dems beating McCain by slightly more than the margin of error. Sheesh.

But I think the way you were lumping New Jersey in with California and New York suggests that you think New Jersey is a blow out like California and New York.

I don't.

I think that if of the three polls right now, one has them statistically tied, and one has the Democratic candidate just barely winning, then I don't think you can blow off New Jersey.

Your whole post was all, "Shut up about these states!"

I agree that the Dems are going to win California and New York. I don't think we need to talk about those states. I think NEW JERSEY and WASHINGTON are open for debate.

arduous, polls this early are cruel jokes.

I also think they are skewed by the fact that Rs have a definitive nominee, and according to big media, the Ds don't. I can see a lot of Hillary supporters or undecideds responding "I don't know" to a hypthetical Obama-McCain matchup, even though they are almost certain to vote D when Obama gets the nod. Same goes for Hillary.

OK, I'm not blowing off New Jersey. I think both candidates will have to work hard to keep it in the D column. But they're obviously going to work hard, and honestly, I don't see either of them losing to John McCain. Even that Rasmussen poll you cited was careful to say the race "starts as a toss-up."

All I'm trying to say is that you need information about the electoral climate in a given state before you're told about how big it is or how many electoral votes it commands.

And Clinton cannot blithely assume that Obama loses California, New York, or New Jersey just because she won the primaries there.

arduous, I don't think we need to worry too much about New Jersey going Republican. The last time they went Republican was for George HW in 1988, 20 years ago. They voted for Clinton, for Gore, for Kerry. We won't ignore them-- they'll hear the strengths of the Democrats (which are many this year).

Washington is certain to send Democratic delegates, and so is New Jersey. If they didn't, it wouldn't be because we picked a poor candidate from these two fine choices.

Annie's rational analysis above is the most astute I've seen in the last two days. Bravo.

@20. Re: Clinton isn't doing that; she's taking it for granted, and by the sound of it actively campaigning for McCain now.

I can see it now: Clinton/McCain '08.

arduous - you are focusing on a small detail that really doesn't prove or disprove the point annie is making. i think the poll -- which may or may not be worth anything -- indicates that NJ could potentially be a battleground state (if the dems take it for granted). but the argument is that it is likely dem (as are the other states) regardless of the dem nominee.

NAFTAgate - the Clinton blowback gift that keeps on giving Clinton a black eye.

New Jersey: might go for McCain because 9/11 is still fresh in many of their minds. Lots of folks who died in WTC were from NJ. They might not have favored Bush over Kerry, but the choice on national security grounds wasn't as stark. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama is going to make a national security voter feel warm and fuzzy compared to McCain.

Washington: probably not in contention. The swing voters (Reagan Democrats) are unlikely to forgive McCain for single-handedly awarding a $40 billion Boeing contract to Airbus.

Nah, now that IEDs are going off in NYC, NJ will realize the Iraq Quagmire ain't working.

Cheer up, annie. Your candidate still has a chance of taking the nomination, what with the plurality of pledged delegates and all. The sun will rise again.

@30: I'm hardly sulking--I'm actually probably too cocky. I've just been telling Mr. Mudede I think Obama is a lock. And I'm pretty sure that'll be a majority of superdelegates, not a plurality. You really think Edwards's 26 lonely delegates will make the difference?

annie- you don't normally yell at your fellow Stranger staffers in front of us. "I am so sick of this mindless bloviating"... "shut up already"... Not your normal cheerful self. You sound more like... certain... other... worked up Stranger candidate advocates.

But really, I was just echoing how you cheered me up a couple of weeks ago when I thought Clinton was totally done, and wasn't going to win another state. And thank heavens, you were totally right!

Sorry, it was a holdover from an editorial meeting when I never finished making my point.