Hell yeah the Carolina's are in play if Obama is running agaisnt McCain.
I might even be able to get my life long republican grandparents to vote for Obama, they don't like McCain at all.

Memo from Plouffe:

To: Interested Parties From: David Plouffe, Campaign Manager Date: March 12, 2008 RE: Moving On to the Next 10 Contests

With his overwhelming victory in the Mississippi primary, Barack Obama’s lead in pledged delegates is now wider than it was on March 3, before the contests in Ohio and Texas. He netted more delegates in Mississippi and Wyoming than Senator Clinton netted on March 4. Obama now holds a pledged delegate lead of 161 with a total of 1411 pledged delegates, while Senator Clinton trails with 1250 pledged delegates. As the number of remaining pledged delegates dwindles, Hillary Clinton’s path to the nomination seems less and less plausible.

Barack Obama has now won nearly thirty contests, over half the states in the country, including critical battleground states like Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, Missouri, Washington and Colorado.

Now that Mississippi is behind us, we move on to the next ten contests. The Clinton Campaign would like to focus your attention only on Pennsylvania – a state in which they have already declared that they are “unbeatable.” But Pennsylvania is only one of 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who are nominee will be. Senator Obama campaigned in Pennsylvania yesterday and will do so again later this week, but he will also campaign aggressively in the other upcoming states – he will travel to other upcoming states in the very near future.

We have activated our volunteer networks, are putting staff on the ground, and building our organization in every one of the upcoming states. The key is not who wins the states that the Clinton campaign thinks are important. Throughout this entire process, they have cherry-picked states, diminished caucuses, and moved the goal posts to create a shifting, twisted rationale for why they should win the nomination despite winning fewer primaries, fewer states, fewer delegates, and fewer votes.

“He’s winning the Democratic process, but that is virtually irrelevant to the general election.”- Simply breathtaking. So, by that logic, we should forget about the Primary/Caucus rules? These 30-some state elections was just performance art? An exercise?

There should be a new law- Public speaking shall not exceed the firing of signals across synapses in the brain.

Harold, you are an idiot.

Nebraska can split in the general. Meaning, McCain could gain 3 electoral votes and Obama 2. That DOES put Nebraska in play.

NC would certainly be in play with Obama. Would it go blue? Perhaps not, but it would force the Repub's to spend precious resources there to make sure it doesn't. However, Virginia could easily go blue, but certainly not with HRC on top of the ticket. Add CO, IA, and NV to that column, as well.

This is a great rebuttal. Hillary is "GIVING UP" states before even TRYING to win them. What's that tell the other voters in America? She's trying to say these leaning republican States are 'useless' to even TRY for.

Disenfranchising THOSE voters too?

We just elected a Dem Congressman in a heavy R district, and almost elected a 2nd one. The state legislature is heavily trending Dem (from small leads to moderate/heavy leads). NC is just as viable a target as VA.

For Obama, that is. Hillary would have no chance to even stay close.

The West is also a veritable treasure trove for Obama. Putting the West and the "enlightened" South into the swing category completely changes the electoral math. It's about time Dems quit being satisfied with drawing to an inside straight.

Team Clinton doesn't get it. Lanny Davis was on TV last night saying that the Dem nominee *must* win 2 of the 3 of PA, FL, and OH to be elected President. Their thinking hasn't evolved one bit from 2000.

How any super with "downticket" responsibilities or hopes could even consider the Clintons is beyond me.

No. It definitely is a white flag, and it keeps getting whiter. Can you say Hillary George Clinton Wallace anyone?

I hope they'll correct the typo before they send this too far:

"... and ultimately deciding who are nominee will be."

Doesn't make a good impression.

How many of those big states did John Kerry win in the primary? What about Gore? Mondale? Dukakis? Didn't seem to mean much in the general election, did it?

If you took Ickes' argument seriously, then why does the Democratic Party even both holding primaries in the rest of the states? Just pick those six big ones that matter and be done with it. It would be cheaper, faster, and save us all this aggravation.

And while we're at it, why even bother having a Democratic Party in all 50 states, if only a handful of them matter?

To use a Clinton catchphrase, let's get real. Obama has a greater chance of winning North Carolina in the general election than he does of losing California or New York.

Ickes said:

"Most of those states haven’t voted Democratic in a presidential since the Johnson landslide over Goldwater in 1964, and we don’t see that changing."

Sargent writes:

David Plouffe used the Ickes quote to beat the electability drum, arguing that Camp Hillary's concession of this general election turf is a sign of her weakness against McCain.

So stating a fact is a sign of weakness to the Obama camp?

Isn't that the same (il)logic the current administration uses to make claims of "progress" in Iraq? Arguing electability is crucial, but I really hope the Obama camp decides to use facts to their advantage rather than dismissing facts as irrelevant. Borrowing Bushthink, while it may be temporarily effective, is not change. It's frighteningly more of the same.

New Update:

"The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?" - Phil Singer

Is he serious?

I mean, really? This is supposed to swat the Superdelegates?

Washington DC voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

If Hillary can't win Washington DC, how does she expect to live there?

vicissitudes,

I'm not precisely sure where in the rules it states that whoever wins the pledged delegates wins the superdelegates. In fact, by your logic, the pledged/proportional delegates would make the superdelegates "winner-take-all." My understanding of the rules is that the superdelegates chose according to their best judgment. For some, that may be pledged delegates, for others, it may be winning the popular vote, having less than 1% difference in pledged delegates, winning the 'Big Blue' states by BIG margins (yes, both candidates would carry the Big Blue states, but it makes quite a statement when one candidate beats the other in a majority of them by significant margins), and winning the larger battleground states (OH, PA, and FL). I am not saying that it must be this way. I guess I am just responding to this:

The popular vote cannot trump pledged delegates or there is no since in having proportionality.

I would argue that the pledged delegates cannot trump the superdelegates or there is no since having superdelegates.

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?

God, I am so fucking SICK of this stupid argument. Assuming Obama does lose to Hillary in Pennsylvania, this tells us NOTHING about whether he'd beat McCain there in November.

Is Singer really stupid enough to think this is a valid argument? Or does he just think the rest of us are that stupid?

The Obama campaign just called for a 12PM conference with governors from Iowa, Wisconsin, Washington, and Missouri to hit back at Phil Singer's comment.

Also, Michael A, I would like to answer your question.

Republican (haters) don't vote for Democrats, independents generally split 55-45/60-40 (in Obama's favor), and Sen. Clinton has a 70% favorable rating among Democrats.

Please, try again. (By the way, how many Republicans think favorably of Sen. McCain?)

what a very weak response by Singer and the Clinton camp.

Was Phil Singer high when he made that comment? I can think of no other explanation for its utter ridiculousness.

The funny part about Singer's response is that a new poll came out today saying Obama has a better chance in that state against McCain then she does.

"The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?"

That easy, Phil... by winning EVERYWHERE ELSE! Now where is that "key Commander-in-Chief" test being given? Is open-book? multiple choice or essay?

I thought the road went through Ohio... or Texas... or - I'm so confused.

What is important and what isn't important?

I think I'm beginning to understand. If Clinton wins it, it's important. If Obama wins it, it's meaningless.

In response to Singer:

Who is favored among Democrats has nothing to do with who can win the entire state in a general election, quit trying to deceive people with your lies.

And how are you supposed to win the White House when polls show you can't win states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania (oh yeah, you might want to check the polls on that before you talk about general election electability), Washington, Oregon, Virginia and others:

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/post/26659785

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?

Just underscores just how backwards the Clinton campaign has approached this election. If I'm a Republican and I KNOW they are willing to contest only 3 states (Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania), then I'm giddy as a school girl. They have limited resources compared to the Democrats and if they only have to contest these three states, they have this election on LOCK. Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Virginia? Not obtainable according to the Clintons. Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, that's all that counts. Meanwhile, McCain makes a run at putting California in play (with his pull of independents).

I'm not sure what the superdelegates are waiting for, but this primary has answered all of the questions we should have about who would be the best general election candidate. I'm not saying any names, but one of them puts more states in play than the other.

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

FACT: Obama doesn't need PA or FL to win 280 electors.

And again, in the update, with the gaping, staggeringly stupid non sequiturs that are the keystone (heh) of her entire campaign at this point:

a) If the Democratic primary voters in State X perfer Dem Candidate A to Dem Candidate B, they will defect en masse to the Republican if Dem Candidate B is the Democratic nominee.

b) If the Democratic voters in State X prefer Dem Candidate A to Dem Candidate B in the primary, Dem Candidate A will also be preferred to Dem Candidate B by the independent and crossover Republican voters of State X he/she will need to win the state in the general election.

Journalists should do their jobs.

(a) Winning a partisan primary does not ensure that you will win the state in a general election.
(b) Losing a partisan primary does not mean that you will lose the state in a general election.
(c) Winning a state does not necessarily mean that you have a better shot at doing better in the state in a general election than the candidate who you beat by a couple of points.

I'm not sandbagging for Obama. I'm simply stating that a partisan primary is just that - a partisan primary. It is not even a straw poll for a general election. Journalists should do a better job - those at least who aren't blinded by the desire to have the front page conflict continue as long as possible.

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?

Somebody tell that to Gore and Kerry.

This is more than a battle between Obama and the Clintons. It's a battle between the DLC strategy and Howard Dean's 50-state strategy. Personally, I see the future of the Democratic Party in Dean's strategy. The DLC is a hinderance--not a help--and their strategy is defeatist and stupid. It completely lacks the vision that's required to expand and strengthen the party.

Which would you rather win, as potential swing states, NC and VA, say, with a combined total of 28 electoral votes, or PA, OH, MI, and FL, with a combined total of 85 electoral votes?

Why NC and VA of course -- if you're an Obama supporter -- even though they have never in the past served as swing states, and it's only the rankest speculation to imagine that they might do so in this cycle.

But in the ObamaBorg, numbers and arithmetic are regarded as the enemy.

As I blogged over at LeanLeft:

A Clinton spokesperson says:

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?

Seriously, I don't get this logic. Because Clinton beats Obama in a primary in a state, that means that Obama can't beat a Republican in that state in the general? Does the Clinton campaign really expect us to believe that Obama would lose to McCain in New York or California?

States that are Democratic strongholds aren't going to suddenly turn Republican because their preferred Democrat lost the primary. Particularly not in this election cycle.

In the words of Stephen Colbert, that's the Stupidest F#@king thing I've ever heard!

re: late update

I'm tired of hearing that losing a state in a Democratic primary equates to losing there it in the general election... since when are Democrats going to go to the polls in November for one candidate but not the other? Are Hillary supporters all of a sudden supposed to vote for McCain? Actually, I think Clintonites are much more likely to vote for Obama when it comes down to it than the other way around, meaning he's actually a stronger candidate in these states than she is, a point which hasn't been made enough on Obama's side.

ombudsman,

You will find that the difference in pledged delegates is not 6%, but 2%.

Can you please explain how you arrived at the 2% figure?

Even Clinton's campaign puts her down by 159.5 pledged delegates, which would be a 2% deficit only if 7975 total pledged delegates had already been awarded.

It's wonderful to hear that the Obama campaign intends to take the battle for the White House to North Carolina. I have said all along that Obama can win the state, which is pretty evenly split between the left and right. Sure, NC elected Jesse Helms, but Harvey Gantt might have beaten him in 1990 or 1996 had Dick Morris not weighed in. If I remember correctly, Gantt led in polls just before each election. And NC has elected Democratic senators with some frequency and Democratic governors often.

But the real key to NC is the disgruntled military in the eastern part of the state, especially around Camp Lejeune. If you want evidence that this is true, study the record of Republican Rep. Walter Jones, who went from cointing the term Freedom Fries in 2003 to joining the Democrats in standing up against Bush in 2007. His transformation ought to be telling us something.

The Obama campaign, by taking NC and other "red" states seriously, may actually help elect Democrats down the ticket, and that is very good for the party.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, would lose NC by 20 points in the general.

Agreed, Ombudsman, without the popular vote, Hillary has very little case to make to the Supedelegates....I also agree we should let this process play out, and try to minimize the possibility one side or the other feels it has been stolen from them. As an Obama supporter, I understand he needs to have an AIRTIGHT argument that this nomination was won fairly. At this point I think it is almost a foregone conclusion, but it is worthwhile to play this out and preempt any hard feelings on the part of Hillary's people. It is almost time to start healing this party in preparation for the general election...not quite yet, but almost. Look for the Superdelegates to move in large numbers towards Obama after a close Penn primary (win or lose)...if Hillary fails to gain a significant number of delegates, it really is over, and I expect enough supers to declare for Obama, that the next few contests (indiana, kent., etc.) will push him over the top to 2025 delegates. Six more weeks of this could be really annoying though....

Dorn76,

Two things. Even as a Hillary supporter, I'd be more willing to bet Obama is more likely to win (and fairly) the nomination. I agree with you, though. This thing is too damn tight (especially among popular vote) not to have it all played out. One way or the other, the supers will decided it, and I have a hard time believing they won't hand it to the guy who is younger, building a coalition of non-Democrats, and won more pledged delegates. Even if he loses among the popular vote, the difference is likely to be very small. So why play it out? Anything can happen in an election. With one so damned close (and with both sides at least having plausible arguments for what 'winning' means), play it out if for no other reason than to never look back and wonder 'what if'(which is why that mess of MI and FL need to be straightened out--if it can be)

Second, I will take you on your 2 to 1 bet. I think she will win Pennsylvania by 12%

She's waving the white flag in the South and the bloody shirt up north. What a lady.

Using the NYT numbers, the only way you get to 2% (actually 2.25%) is ignoring all of the "Projections from Non-Binding Contests" as NYT classifies Iowa et. al. Disingenuous at best. Adding those in it's a 5.4% lead.