Eric, give it a rest. She cannot take the nomination so what difference does it make, besides making all of us excited?

Clinton deliberately spikes Obama's "negatives"--he's black, he's Muslim, etc.--and then crows about the results ... with tpm acting (again) as the echo chamber/enabler

please, tpm: this isn't "news." Can't you find something more important to blog about????

Alright, here's my plan for the 2012 Democratic primary:

A group of tribal elders from the DLC will gather in Newport. They will be locked in a completely sealed blue building (or a room). They will have exactly 22 hours to decide who the nominee will be, based on electability, likeability, and personal gain. When they reach their decision, they will burn blue ballots in the chimney, which will indicate a decision has been made.

I think Eric would like that.

It's also true that Obama outperforms Clinton in most western states. Places like Colorado, Washington and Oregon. So yes, they have different maps to the White House. And the map that Clinton relies on is the same one used by Kerry and Gore. And that didn't work out so well for us.

Besides, as pointed out, you've still got a race in which the Clinton supporters are trying to make a point, i.e. if Clinton isn't in it, "I'm not gonna vote for the mean man that took it away from Clinton". So these polls WILL change between now and November. Not to say that I think Obama will win any or all of these, but looking at polls now doesn't say that Clinton would either.

I feel like we rehash this argument every time they release this poll. The election's not just about Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

This post is not news. It's campaign spin. I respectfully ask TPM to clearly label it as such.

Since when is the presidential election decided by Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania alone?

Eric, why don't you find three states where Obama is doing better than Hillary against McCain and write some tripe about how this is grave news for Hillary's electability...

That's only part of it. Karl Rove's electoral map shows Hillary is the stronger candidate against Obama on the nation-wide electoral map. It may be hard for Obama supporters to believe it, but many Hillary supporters do genuinely believe that she is more electable for many reasons. Some believe only she will beat McCain. Thus you can better understand their concern and their continued support for her.

This drives me nuts that people think these are the only states that matter. Yes, they are important but Hillary still loses if only carries these states. Clinton also loses in WI, MI & IA. Dems cannot win without these states either. Obama has as much chance at making up ground in OH/FL as HRC does in MI & WI. I don't think HRC can win IA. She can win AR & WV but he wins CO, NM & NV. People need to get over the OH/FL obsession. I am not saying it isn't helpful to win them, but Dems have relied on those 2 states for 8 years and have lost. Time to branch out the electoral map. He may have to work a little harder for some of the traditional states, but he also puts a lot more states in play.

Josh,

Why don't you just have Howard Wolfson post here directly, and save yourself Eric's salary?

Eric, you are obsessed with Hillary's talking points. A week ago Greg came up with the exact same list of states to prove Hillary's electability.

I said then and I say now: what's so swingy about Pennsylvania?

I said then and I say now: where are CO, IA, MN, NC, NM, NV, VA, WI?

Lastly, if she's so electable, why is she losing the election she's in right now?

So lets see, McCain has a lead in 2 of the swing states in May, so lets forget the general election in November and make him president now.

I always thought the best way to determine electability was to have, you know, elections. We did and she lost. End of story.

This is from Hillary's MySpace page:

Best and worst grades or subjects in school: I always loved history and got good grades, but I never did well at math.

She never did well at math! Nuff said.

And here's more on Mark Halperin from Media Matters:

In other words, follow the money. Note this key quote from Halperin's recent appearance on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor. It pretty much lays bare the motivation behind the kowtowing:

As an economic model, if you want to thrive like Fox News Channel -- [if] you want to have a future -- you better make sure conservatives find your product appealing. [Emphasis added.]

This is about moving product, not producing good journalism.

It's interesting to note that early on in The Way to Win's marketing blitz, Halperin wasn't panhandling conservatives, making broad accusations about "overwhelming" liberal bias in the press. For instance, he sat for a one-hour interview on the October 5 edition of PBS' Charlie Rose, and the allegation of a "liberal media" was never made. It was not until the last week of October, after The Way to Win had failed to crack the best-seller list, that the feel-good conservative talking points about the biased press began to leap out of Halperin's mouth.

I'm sure the frustrating part for Halperin is that even his public genuflection to the right wing, confirming every dark fantasy they have about the press, has not been enough to boost book sales. Indeed, I cannot recall a recent book that received such blanket, mainstream media notice as The Way to Win has and still been unable to translate that exposure into substantial sales. Since the book's release in October, Halperin has been invited onto The Diane Rehm Show, Charlie Rose, The O'Reilly Factor, Glenn Beck, Reliable Sources, Late Edition, Imus in the Morning, Good Morning America, Lou Dobbs Tonight, The Sean Hannity Show, The Jim Bohannon Show, The Colbert Report, Washington Journal, Washington Week, and The Michael Medved Show, as well welcomed into the pages of Slate, Newsweek.com, and The Washington Post, just to name a few. (The Drudge Report also hyped the book.)

In book publishing, it's almost physically impossible to garner that much press attention -- especially national TV exposure -- and not score a best-seller. Yet Halperin has managed to defy the odds.

Nonetheless, it's been a sad and bewildering spectacle to watch someone of Halperin's professional stature grovel before conservatives while he denigrates fellow journalists in the process. I've written a lot this year about Halperin. In fact I devoted an entire chapter to The Note in my book about Bush and the press, and I wrote a lengthy analysis of The Way to Win, which he co-wrote with John Harris from The Washington Post. The reason for the attention is that I think Halperin so perfectly captures what's wrong with much of the Beltway press. And his recent behavior is indicative of a larger trend taking place within the uppermost echelons of the elite media: a borderline obsession to "prove" to conservatives that the press can play fair. Corporate journalists have developed an acute case of rabbit ears, becoming preoccupied with the catcalls from the right, and have decided, for increasingly selfish and personal reasons, to make nice with the right-wing crowd, even if it means trampling journalistic standards in the process.

link: http://mediamatters.org/columns/200611060008

I also find it rather interesting how a lot of the TPM Election posts here are taken directly from Mark Halperin's The Page. Whatever happened to original reporting?

How come the only swing states that matter are the ones Hillary won or is trying to steal?

Lose Wisconsin from the Dem column and PA/FL/OH means jack shit.

......can we make this a election a best candidate challenge? Like in golf McCain could choose a person like Romney who would receive the highest number of votes in places like MA and UT and uh MI? and Obama can use Clinton to head the ticket in FL, OH and AR? The highest vote total amongst the candidates will take that state for their respective party? I mean if we're willing to chuck the rules we should screw this piecemeal method I say radical realignment of the election process.

What these polls reflect is that Hillary has greater democratic support in Ohio, PA, and FL. When Obama becomes the nominee, you will see a significant shift favoring Obama once the democratic establishment in those states coalesces around his campaign.

I will say it again, if the super's buy into Hillary's argument and award her the nomination, we will assuredly lose in the fall. African Americans and young people will view that result as a "steal" from Obama and sit out the election in droves.

Moreover, her threats of taking it to the convention don't hold water. Why exactly is she fighting so vociferously? There isn't a dime's worth of difference on their policy prescriptions. When a candidate takes the debate to the convention, it's to fight for the heart and soul of the party. Precisely what argument can Hillary make? That she's the heart and soul of the party?

I think this now a weak point and you also forget other polls: In Colorado, for instance, Obama leads McCain by 6 pts, 48-42, Hillary loses in that state to McCain 47-44. So whatever Obama may lose he picks up elsewhere, Also, Pennsylvania should not be on that list, because Obama still beats McCain by 6 pts, so like Clinton he still gets al the electoral votes. In a general it doesn't matter if you win by 20 pts or 50+1 the result is the same.

Oh, and let's not forget that Obama trounced Shrillary in Kansas by over 40 points - what, no white working class in that state?????

Disclosure: I'm an Obama supporter. But the contrast between how he and Clinton would run a general election campaign is stark. This is what the McCain campaign will shape up to be:

http://www.washingtonpost.com//wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/21/AR2008052102425.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

A strong, offensive campaign, supported by the media.

When was the last time Obama set the terms of the debate? He's CONSTANTLY on the defensive about his wife, his relationship with Farrakhan, Ayers, Wright, his health care policy, Iran, EVERYTHING. Even if he's handled these issues well, I'd like to see him come out swinging more ... and for the media to pick up on the meme, like they supported the Swiftboaters.

Hillary would probably run a much more aggressive, less wussy campaign.

Numbers like this only strengthen the argument that Hillary should exit. Here's why. Obama would no doubt like to start general election campaigning in these three key states. But with Hillary still in the race, he can't do so without the media either leading with a presumptuousness headline or making the Hillary battle an important subtext. Yesterday in Florida was case in point. Obama had a rally in Tampa with 20000 supporters. It barely got covered in Florida and nationwide, because Hillary was there trying to delegitimize Obama's impending nomination victory.

She is toxic. She must exit now for the good of the party.

Superdelegates, grow some cajones and give Obama that 2025 now, rather than three weeks from now!

Has polling in May ever had an affect on the outcome in November ?

who cares? he's already picking a losing mate.

For what little my opinion is worth, I am extremely doubtful that either democrat can win Florida. If polls show her ahead there now, that is fine and all, but there were polls showing Gore and Kerry ahead there this far out. Polls do not determine the electoral votes; elections do.

There are a lot of Christian conservatives in Florida who are so disgusted with McCain that when pollsters call them up they tell the pollster that they are not going to vote; they thus fail the "likely voter" screen and do not get tabulated in the calculations. Their willingness to stay home, however, is partly a function of the fact that Clinton is not on the ticket. If we actually nominated Sen Clinton, however, their animus against her would provide incentive enough to come back off the bench for McCain and the poll results would shift. This is a long way of saying, whatever the polls say now, I very much doubt that either democrat could beat McCain in Florida in November.

I do believe that Clinton would do better than Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Of course, I also believe that Obama will do well enough in Pennsylvania. That is to say, she would carry the state by a larger margin than he would, but there is no bonus prize for winning PA by 15% instead of 5%. I expect that OH will be closer, and that really might be a state that she would have won and he will lose. On the other hand, he will win CO and IA and WI while she would have lost there. CO+IA+WI=26 electoral votes. OH=20. It is important to keep a measure of perspective here.

The conventional "wisdom" has always been that Dems have to win Florida and Ohio to win the White House. This year is going to be different. We will be running, and electing, the first black man for the presidency of the United States of America. All bets are off, all conventional thinking should be put aside. Unfortunately the Media, Pundits and the folks inside the beltway are incapable of thinking any differently so we'll still be hearing the same old same old, but don't be taken in, this is going to be different.

On another note, is it me or is TPM losing some of its luster? Has Josh grown it beyond its ability to sustain itself? Quality seems to be suffering, content seems to be lacking and timeliness is failing. Often times I see posts here that I've read days ago on other sites. What is going on? I've reverted back to reading the Huffington Post.