Thank you! I've been trying to argue this with friends and such for weeks, and it's nice to have a reputable source to be able to point them to now.

Penn already knows this and he already doesnt care since it isnt about facts its about spin.

Wow, now the hitherto insurmountable delegate gap will instantaneously evaporate.

Mathematical reality is powerless before the pantsuit with no coattails.

Portly Penn and his reality disconnect ARE EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

By Penn's reasoning Hillary will lose the entire Midwest for the Democratic Party: Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin. . . Of course, Penn's suggestion is absurd on its face. Losing a primary in a state does not mean you'll lose the GE in that state.

Penn is a buffoon. Why hasn't Hillary fired him? I've had enough of leaders that can't bring themselves to fire incompetent subordinates.

My best guess is that Greg has more contacts in the Clinton campaign, so those tend to be the sources for more pieces about what's going on. The stories themselves, though are usually unbiased and flag spin as spin. Still it makes the story selection seem more Clinton based.

It is quite surprising that Hillary is not running stronger than that, in what should be pretty much home turf for her, in the Great State of Pantsuitmania.

Primary numbers at state-level matchups can't be an accurate predictor of general election strength. The are too many vaibles at play - the greatest being time. The conventional wisdom (and my own home-grown wisdom) suggests that the polarizing nature of Clinton and her campaign would cause her to fare far worse when pitted against McCain. Is this not as intuitive as it seems?

The clearly orchestrated performance by Ferraro, and the Clinton campaign's subtle but sickening methodology for keeping race in the minds of the media and electorate has shown her tactical strength and ethical weakness. Her attempts to connect the dots to 'NAFTA-gate', Renzo, Rev. Wright, 1960's Radicals, Muslimism, Farrakhan, and plagiarism have all fallen flat - but taken as a whole reveal a campaign that seeks to sow division, fear, and knee-jerk racist reaction. She hasn't lost the battle of ideas simply because she never engaged in it - not from the very start.

Before the South Carolina primary, I had a very pragmatic, if naive, view of this campaign. I prefered Obama overall, but viewed Clinton as skilled politician and likely a strong and principaled leader. Now I see her as much less - more a member of the Roveian school of calculation, misdirection, divisiveness, and fear.

I will, without hesitation, not only vote for McCain in the general election if Hillary is the nominee - I will campaign for him. I'll telephone bank, canvas, fundraise, plant a yard sign, and paint my face on game day for McCain before I'll step into a voting booth and cast a vote for Clinton. Her brand of poison is the worst kind - not just toxic, but lethal.

The flaw in Greg's rational is the time frame.
This far out from the GE a poll is all but meaningless. Adding in more GE polls will not improve their accuracy especially polls which occurred a lifetime ago. Does anyone seriously believe that a GE poll taken in early January says anything meaningful about next November? How bizarro is that?
At this point the primary poll is a more accurate measure of relative strength and voter preference between the candidates and therefor is arguably, but only somewhat, a more accurate measure of strength in theoretical GE match ups than GE polling.
Certainly the PennSpin is a grotesque overstatement of the importance of the differences shown in the primary polls but to try and refute it using ancient numbers strikes me as willfully perverse.

And by the way, the fact that a significant number of Dems can prefer HRC to BHO in the primary but believe BHO a stronger GE candidate suggests that voters' thinking about the GE is still rather inchoate and impersonal. That is what one would expect and it further reinforces the relative valuelessness of current GE polling.

Uh

The Clintons stole the New Hampshire and Nevada elections

and

Obama actually won Texas

uh

And it's the Clintons that started to play the race card right before the South Carolina primary (they were going for that huge Democratic bigot vote and kicking the most reliable voting bloc in the Democratic Party, I guess)

and

Obama national campaign co-chair Jesse Jackson, Jr. wondered why Hillary cried about her appearance but didn't shed a tear for the Hurricane Katrina victims (were lots of them black folks?)

No ridiculous campaign spinning by the Obama camp to see here. Move along.

Seriously, both sides "spin" the facts continuously and it's still close enough that both are still fighting to win it, especially the current underdog. Nothing unusual here. No one is trying to tear the Democratic Party apart. Honestly, is this the first primary campaign that some of you have ever witnessed? I think it's been realatively civil and ethical on both sides so far.

Stressing the points that polls show favor you (experience, savvy, having the inside-the-Beltway clout to get things done, etc.) - when you're the underdog who needs to gain ground on the leader - that's what's done in any campaign. It's nothing personal. It's politics.

But some folks are so blinded by their irrational, rightwing-cultivated Hillary hate that they assume ulterior motives in every move. Your candidate knows differently. Like they both said. They were friends before the campaign, and they'll be friends and supporters (maybe even on the same ticket) when this is over.

Blind hatred of a competitor is not more becoming on you because you think it's progressively based in your case.

Greg,

LOGIC suggests that it is a huge stretch and/or lie to say that Clinton is more electable if she wins Pennsylvania.

Thanks for playing the "who can take Mark Penn's words at face value the longest" game. Here is your prize.

Bottom line: The general election match-ups suggest that it's a huge stretch to make a Hillary-is-more-electable argument for Pennsylvania based simply on Democratic primary numbers.

Oh! Greg.

Genius, I tell ya
Absolutely, Genius.
What a stretch, who would have thought of it.
Genius, I say! Absolutely

That's absolute nonsense. If Obama can't win the election in Pennsylvania it means that he has completely failed to carry a single large and important state except his own. He is NOT a viable candidate. He entire act is smoke and mirrors. And pretending that polls are as good as winning elections is intellectually dishonest.

These polls are meaningless. Especially now that Barak Obama proposed to split MI at 50/50. Essentially, he proposed to steal 5% of votes for Clinton. He proposed to steal votes from Gravel. He proposed to steal "uncommitted" votes from Edwards who shared the uncommitted agitation with him.

This is disgusting politics of change. Count me out in GE

You know who else tried to run on the idea that they could win the big important states based on primary results? Dukakis, and we all see what happened to him with losing Ohio, California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Illinois in the general.

roo_P

Yes, of course it's spin by Mr. Penn. That's my point. That Obama "won" Texas is Obama spin that you've bought into - that's why they do it. CW is that Hillary won Texas primary. I buy her and conventional wisdom "spin" on it.

BTW - Jesse Jackson, Jr. IS a national co-chair of Obama's campaign, so the lies . . . uh . . . I mean . . . spin . . . that he offered on Hillary's crying (she welled up, she didn't break down and cry) and tying it into his "knowledge" that she never cried (read: really cared) about the plight (of the black folks) in New Orleans is Obama campaign spin.

Do I really need to send links about the Obama caampaign blessing the NH and Nevada "stolen election" rumors by the Obama campaign "investigating" these charges. Funny, I never heard anything about the results of these "investigations."