For a long time, we've been the victims in Rove's 51% politics--that is to say, the ardent "ruling: on behalf of the base and 'screw the other half of the country'.

My fear is that Clinton is going to govern for her base as well, and reprisal politics will continue.

Imagine over a quarter century of Bush's and Clinton's. I think it's pretty unimaginitive.

I think that if Clinton gets the nomination, independents will flock to the polls, and will go for the one who is seen as the most likely to compromise...in this case, John McCain.

It doesn't hurt one bit that right doesn't like him...

Obama has the bets chance. Obama attracts a lot of new voters has a huge strengths among younger voters, African Americans and the well educated. Clinton's traditional Democratic party supporters will more likley vote democratic whoever runs gains the GOP.

Independents prefer Obama over 2-1 over McCain, while they prefer McCain over Hillary by the a more wider margin.

McCain has a hard problem convincing the conservative base to be enthusiastic and come out and vote for him. Obama has shown that he can attract moderate from the Republican side. Polls show, even among republicans, Obama is as much "likable" as McCain.

If Clinton has wins the unlikely nomination by whatever means, she WILL have to have Obama on the top of ticket to give a fighting chance against McCain.

"None of the Above are acceptable"

This is the one thing you will NEVER see on a ballot so long as the 2-sided-coin-but-really-only-1-party system continues to have total control over the election "process"

But in truth, I cannot - EVER - cast a ballot for any of these three candidates, and will not be forced to do so. I will either write-in someone else, or simply not cast a "vote" in that space, moving on to other national and local races, where I might actually have a horse of some kind.

Never again will I "waste" my vote on someone for whom I can't give my full, principled support. Never again will I allow myself to settle for what the late Sy Leon called "the evil of two lessers".

Why am I so strident about this? Because this country faces literal collapse and extinction, and none of those three so-called "top-tier" candidates have even come to grips with the real issues, let alone even paid lip-service to workable solutions. Every one of these people are status-quo candidates, at a time when none of us should consider status-quo solutions acceptable.

No candidate is running on a platform of restoring civil liberties, specifically habeas corpus, strict enforcement of FISA regs, and repeal of the Patriot and Military Commissions acts. No candidate is talking about the pounding the dollar is taking globally as a national security issue - which it is. No candidate is talking seriously about the so-called "Free Trade" agreements (which are not free trade at all, but managed trade, that benefit multinational corporations at the expense of US workers), except of course when they're pandering for votes in Ohio and Michigan. 2 of 3 candidates talk about ending the Iraq war, but won't set a timetable. The other candidate wants to stay there 100 years. None talk about the mountain of debt that's been generated, nor the destruction of credibility America has in the world.

So, sorry, folks, I can't waste my time niggling over demographics and "energized" new voters. You're all being led off the cliff by new pied pipers, but who actually play the same old song, the one written by their banking and corporatist masters, decades ago.

Well the statistics on CNN show the uneducated vote for Clinton and the educated vote for Obama, across all the states so far this has held to be true.

I thought this was interesting I wonder what it tells us?

I mean if Clinton wins, she absolutely needs Obama on the *joint ticket* to have any chance of beating McCain. But if Obama wins, he doesn't as much need Hillary. He would rather have a more experienced or real experienced candidates like Todd, Webb etc than Hillary, or perhaps Bloomberg... anyone other than Clinton as VP. Clinton can still have a major role to play in Obama Administration as Senate Majority leader where her skills can be used, but not on the general election ballot which will unite the Republicans and Independents and divide the Democrats.

I would like to join this discussion as an outsider if I may.

The way it looks now, at this moment to me, my intuition still tells me: it is Barack Obama. But that is not thought out. I wonder whether there can be given one good reason for just that One candidate that will become the next President.

He, however, showed a certain attitude of willing to really listen, not only to the people but also to the candidates, and take that with him in discussions.

In my humble view: America has manoeuvred itself into a difficult position in the world. But, on the other hand, provided the world with lots of lessons that can be learnt a lot of. We here in Europe are still not able to do things that much different as America does.

But here is another view I HAVE thought about:

Suppose that in the end Al Gore will become the democratic candidate for the Presidential election.

Why, because he and only he has enough experience and charisma to lead America through a very difficult period: the coming four years.

The world problems at stake are enormous, too serious, too outstanding to be ignored anymore and need a government of national unity, not only in America but in the whole world. As America still IS the leader of the world, this should be considered very carefully.

If Al Gore becomes the next President of the U.S.A., he should choose John McCain as his vice-president.

The karma the U.S. has built as a result of the past has only one solution: unity.

But who am I? Just a housewife who never really has involved herself in politics at all and doesn't know all those rules and customs that are involved in politics.

So in the end, just a view of an outsider.

Love, Mieke

I don't think any individual could ascertain who would be the best president for the evolution of mankind, because individuals do not know the actual challenges and situations that will be faced.

This would only be known by our Gestalt Intelligence (The Source). The voting system if properly designed and executed would allow for the selection of the president by the Gestalt Intelligence. This is where the sum of individual votes becomes the collective vote such that a greater intelligence and infinite being through it’s wide scope of influence would in effect, choose. The collective vote inherently void of egoic influence provided the constituency is informed without bias or falsehoods.

GESTALT:
1. a configuration, pattern, or organized field having specific properties that cannot be derived from the summation of its component parts; a unified whole.
2. an instance or example of such a unified whole.

Presidents one might think are supposed to preside over the functional manifestation of our collective intent by the institution known as “government” a term which is being reframed as "The Collective".

Who would be the best to preside over the evolution of the United States?

-The individual most capable of furthering our evolution, the expansion and protection of life, and the creation of beautiful experience.
-The individual that could embrace and transform rather than confront and attack.
-The individual not operating under the influence fictional beliefs but with knowing and truth. They who would be able to speak the words to dissolve the fictions in our minds that separate and delude.
-The individual that facilitates unity not division.
-The individual focused on meeting the needs of all participants but not necessarily the wants.
-The individual with the least ties to the benefactors of the old systems, the one most capable of transforming the old systems into something new.
-The individual that had been exposed to new paradigms and not conditioned with the ways of the old.
-The individual that can guide and facilitate the transformation of the industries, professions, and institutions into a new holistic model.

The Collective contrary to popular first assumption is not about communism or socialism it is all about engineering and filtering special interests or egoic influence out of the system. It is a transfer of power from individual intelligence to Gestalt Intelligence. It is about transparency where decisions are made in the open by many to achieve a balanced perspective, beneficial to the whole and the individual.

The Collective does not mean “conformity” in fact the collective thrives on non-conformity which furthers our evolution, discovery and invention.

The Collective celebrates the freedom of individual expression and liberty. The revolutionary, eccentric, outcast, free radical and challenger to the status quo are vital to the success of the collective.

The Collective is not about control but creation.

-The creation of shared systems, organization of individuals instrumental to the manifestation of our intent, and the establishment of a fair playing field.
-The formulation of a balanced perspective integrating the needs of all, and a value exchange accounting system with integrity where an entities wealth creation is not limited but reflects the contribution of real value and benefit multiplied by the number served.
-The implementation of large projects beyond the scope and capability of the individual parts.
-Protection of the individual and their liberties and providing aid to those under duress or beset by calamity.
-Protection of the shared systems and infrastructure.
-The elimination of indentured servitude in all it’s forms.
-The dissemination of intelligence and wisdom and the dissolution of ignorance

I think it would be safe to say that whoever becomes president it will be in divine order.

If we make a devolved choice we might get tribulation that will bring us to evolve to the place where we will choose a better president.

If we make an evolved choice then we will get a president that accelerates our evolution.

It all happens perfectly, the choice of experience is ours.

Hi Richard,

So it IS in the scheme of things, spontaneously and one cannot predict it in one way or the other, just has to have faith in the "right" outcome.

So Harb and Avtar are both right :)

Choice less awareness in the Scheme of things...

Result: spontaneous decay.

Mieke

This is what I heard within the Wind ....

"A young male will be president of the united states."

So I think that only leaves Obama?

Otherwise, I have no inputs, but the more I see of Obama, the more I like, especially his take on 'CHANGE.'

That's my vote and thanks for asking.

Love, Char

To answer DK's question:

McCain Trails Clinton(6 percentage points) And Obama (12 points)

Wed Mar 05, 2008
DailyKos

An aging John McCain doesn't look so good against either of the Democratic candidates(ABC):

"A surge of Democratic allegiance is boosting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton alike in match-ups against John McCain, with change vs. experience as the roadmap for voter preferences in the 2008 general election.

Obama's advantage over McCain is the bigger one in this ABC News/Washington Post poll, a 12-point lead compared to Clinton's 6-point edge. McCain's endorsement by George W. Bush may not help: The president's back at his career low approval rating, matching Harry Truman in long-term unpopularity."

***

Was that a gratuitous knock against McCain's elderly status? Nah. And get used to it. McCain's age is a big deal. From the WaPo version:

"Another obstacle for McCain might be his age. More than a quarter of those polled said they are less inclined to support McCain because, if elected, he would be the oldest person ever to become president. The percentage discouraged by McCain's age is more than double the numbers who would be less enthusiastic about supporting Obama due to his being an African American or Clinton because she is a woman."

***

But McCain has more problems than that. We've covered McCain's problems with his base, and the underwhelming enthusiasm of the shrinking GOP base. Now this (ABC):

"But McCain is losing three in 10 conservatives to either Obama or Clinton, far more than he likely could stand to see slip away. Democratic presidential candidates since 1988 have won 15 to 20 percent of conservatives, not 30 percent.

That poses a potentially difficult straddle for McCain – reassuring conservatives on his right without alienating moderates and independents in the center. Currently many more Americans call Obama "about right" ideologically, 56 percent, than McCain, 41 percent."

***

And then there's the war (Washington Post):

"About two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job and think the war was not worth fighting, and most hold those positions "strongly." A slim majority also doubts the United States is making progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq, even as McCain and others extol recent successes there.

These views are closely related to voters' choices: McCain does poorly against Clinton and Obama among those who disapprove of the president and those opposing the war.

Among independents, those who see improvements in Iraq break for McCain against either Democrat; six in 10 of those more skeptical of progress would go for a Democrat."

***

And then there's the hugely unpopular George "Albatross" Bush (ABC):

"Today's endorsement by Bush may not do wonders for McCain: The president has a 32 percent job approval rating, matching his career low, outdone among postwar presidents only by Truman, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.

While 65 percent of Republicans approve, that's a new low for Bush within his own party. His approval drops to 9 percent among Democrats and 32 percent among independents.

Bush's support has been as steady as it is low, between 32 and 36 percent in more than a dozen ABC/Post polls since December 2006. He hasn't seen majority approval in 38 months, matching Truman's record from 1949-1952."

These are terrible numbers for McCain. Nothing is definitive and permanent, and sure, it's only a March poll. Also note, this poll is 'adults'; RVs and LVs this far out is almost impossible to figure. But some of the things highlighted here cannot be changed. You can't teach youth (to steal from the basketball bromide about height), McCain is not a change candidate, and Iraq opinions are strongly held.

And then there's the economy. The party in power is going to take a beating for the recession we're in, and economics is hardly McCain's strength.

All in all, the poll helps brings perspective, and echoes the NY Times and RT Strategies in putting McCain behind Obama, and no worse than tied with Clinton.

No guarantees, no predictions, but don't be deceived; McCain starts behind and the attention garnered by the dueling Democrats is not helping McCain any more than Bush's endorsement will.

Clinton's "Big State" Myth: Why Barack Obama Remains the Most Electable Democrat This Fall
by Robert Creamer

Posted March 5, 2008

The Clinton Campaign's post March 4th message is to forget about the delegate count and nominate Hillary because she can win the big states Democrats need in November. That argument simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Here's why:

1) Most of the "Big States" she has won are not battleground states in the fall. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California are solid blue states where Obama would do as well or better than Clinton in a general election against McCain.

2) Of the states she's won so far, the big exception to this rule is Ohio. Ohio is in fact a critical battleground state where Hillary has demonstrated that she has a leg up among lower income whites and older voters. But the polling also shows that in a general election, Barack offsets this advantage in Ohio among young voters and college-educated independents. In a McCain-Clinton match up the later group could gravitate heavily to McCain in Ohio.

In an Ohio general election, Obama's ability to attract independents and mobilize young and minority voters will trump Clinton's advantages among non-college whites -- a group that will break heavily for either Barack or Hillary against the "free trade" McCain.

Just remember, in Ohio right now, "national security" is a job. The economy and trade -- not "national security" -- will almost certainly continue to be the overriding issues for non-college whites in Ohio this November.

3) Obama puts in play a panoply of states where Clinton would have a much tougher time. Obama could potentially win Virginia (13 electoral votes), Missouri (11 electoral votes) and even Mississippi (whose population is 40% African American -- 6 electoral votes). He would be considerably more competitive than Clinton in other battleground states like Colorado (9 electoral votes), Iowa (7 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Minnesota (10 electoral votes) and Michigan (17 electoral votes). The same goes for New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) -- a state where McCain will work hard to woo independents among whom Obama did much better than Clinton in this year's primary.

4) Even in states where Clinton could make a case for some advantages relative to Obama, these "advantages" are far from certain. Take Florida where she might assert an advantage among Latinos. Florida also has up to 500,000 newly enfranchised ex-felons -- many of whom are African American. The problem with these new voters is mobilization, not persuasion. Getting them registered and voting will be hard. Obama would obviously turn out many more African American mobilizable voters than Clinton. And when it comes to Latino voters, Obama's clear record on immigration contrasts well with McCain who has thrown Latino immigration reform aspirations under the bus in order to pander to his party's right wing.

5) Obama has the one quality that allows him to simultaneously motivate mobilizable base voters and appeal to persuadable independents -- the ability to inspire. This quality allows him to broaden the appeal of his candidacy to swing voters. At the same time it allows him to expand the electorate with new young and African American voters who otherwise simply wouldn't vote. Clinton is the anti-inspiration candidate. She will have a much harder time both expanding the electorate and appealing to swing voters. Obama's ability to inspire -- by itself -- makes him a much stronger general election candidate.

6) Finally, let's remember that the base of the Republican Party -- cultural conservatives -- is not so wild about McCain. They are accepting McCain with about as much enthusiasm as children take cough medicine. They know they need him, but they really aren't happy about it. The one thing that could energize the Republican base is their inveterate hatred for Hillary Clinton. Clinton would mobilize right-wing base voters the same way that hatred for Bush motivated Democrats in 2006. Why should we help galvanize the Republican base by nominating Hillary Clinton when we have another great choice?

All of these factors are born out in the consistent survey results that show Obama polls six to ten points better than Clinton against John McCain.

Clinton will have a difficult to impossible time winning the pledged delegate battle. Her only path to the nomination is convincing Super Delegates that she is the most electable. That dog won't hunt.

Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the new book Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win. The book is available at Amazon.com.

Hi Mieke, something like that. Perhaps we endow the character role of the president with to much importance. The president’s power and also that of congress does not come close to the power of our collective intent in bringing change.

This will become more apparent in the months ahead. We are certainly not dependant on the President to bring change.

DK: Strange but yesterday I was discussing the same topic with a friend. She is into astrology and has been frequenting some forums and doing her own research as well. According to her:

- Clinton will be the next President. No doubts on that.
- Obama is strong but has some issues with his signs at this time.
- one of the three will not be there post november. She thinks it is McCain as he is so old and has health issues.

I thought it was fairly interesting. I am a Bill Clinton fan and an Obama fan... but I am amazed at the resilience of Hillary. She has rediscovered herself or rather redefined herself at every stage! If she cannot become the president... then no women ever can in this country. She is the toughest one that I have seen.

Cheers,
desh
Drishtikone.com

"I am amazed at the resilience of Hillary. She has rediscovered herself or rather redefined herself at every stage! If she cannot become the president... then no women ever can in this country. She is the toughest one that I have seen."

It's not she who is "redefining" herself but her campaign strategists and advisers who are marketing her. She managed to win by attacking Obama - not by rediscovering or being herself. That's the problem with Clinton. She is running like a male Bush. Her record is filled with posturing as tough on issues even at the expense of liberal principles. Obama is the true feminine candidate. She could have become the President if not for Obama. Simple as that.

But not many people appreciate Clinton's negative campaign and tactics which are shredding the Democratic party, and will have a huge repercussions come Nov. whoever wins. Their chances of fighting McCain will be hit big. The young , AA community and the well educated who generally don't vote may not come to polls. Clinton's older people, blue collar workers may not come out to vote for Obama as well, if this fight comes down to tearing each other part and if people feel their candidate is victimized. The simple math is against her, the only way she can possibly win is by going negative and expecting the Supers side with her. It would be better for Clinton and the Democratcic party for her to run a honorable campaign(like Huckabee did) instead of both of them going negative. And the only other possibility for Clinton is hoping for a win in Nov. with Obama on the joint ticket. That would be last thing the GOP is looking for to ignite passions in their base; a female and a black man on the ticket, and of course a Clinton who can unify their fractured Conservative base as no one can.

She has been blocking Clinton Library White House records and the Tax Returns. The Taxes can drastically damage the chances of a Democratic victory if she releases them after the nomination has been clinched. That is not a risk the Democratic voters should be willing to take. The media will finally put pressure with people demanding it, and we have over a month after March 8.

"Clinton-Obama-McCain: Who is likely to win?"

SUSA did some pretty kick-ass polling of all 50 states, matching up Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama against John McCain. The results?

McCain 262
Clinton 276

McCain 258
Obama 280

They both do it differently:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/6/145023/7178/225/470640

The issue with Clinton is not that she is a woman but she is a ...Clinton. Duh! The Clinton loyalists and the party machinery is solidly behind her.

h., #16 thanks for posting the SurveyUSA numbers...

Chris Bowers from OpenLeft analyzes the numbers:

Survey USA has released fifty-state polls for the general election. When looking at this data, keep in mind that about one in twenty polls is way, way off (there are 100 polls here). Here is the Clinton vs. McCain map, which is Clinton 276-262 McCain:

Solid Clinton--77 (eleven or more points): AR, DC, IL, MA, NY, RI
Lean Clinton--126 (six to ten points): CA, CT, FL, ME, MD, OH, VT
Toss Up--135 (five points or less): DE, HI, IA, MI, MN, MO, NJ, NM, OR, PA, TN, WA, WV, WI
Lean McCain--136 (six to ten points): AL, CO, KS, KY, LA, MS, NV, NH, NC, OK, SC, TX, VA
Solid McCain--65 (eleven or more points): AK, AZ, GA, ID, IN, MT, NE, ND, SD, UT, WY

And here is the Obama vs. McCain map, which is Obama 280-258 McCain:

Solid Obama--163 (eleven or more points): CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, NY, RI, VT, WA, WI
Lean Obama--66 (six to ten points): CO, DE, MA, MN, NM, OH, OR
Toss-up--186: (five points or less): AK, FL, MI, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, PA, TX, VA
Lean McCain--25 (six to ten points): IN, MO, MT
Solid McCain--98 (eleven or more points): AL, AZ, AR, GA, ID, KY, LA, MS, OK, TN, UT, WV, WY

Despite seemingly similarity in their performance against McCain, this breakdown shows real differences between Obama and Clinton in the general election. Against Obama, McCain's "solid" and "lean" states only add up to 123, while Obama's add up to 229. In a matchup against Clinton, the "solid" and "lean" states are of equal size: 201 for McCain, and 203 for Clinton. In other words, while McCain and Clinton appear evenly matched, McCain is only able to keep it close against Obama by running up a series of narrow wins in the toss-up states.

An important pro-Clinton caveat on these polls is that they were taken before Clinton's successful night on March 4th. Since whoever has the momentum in the primary tends to have the momentum in the general election, I expect her to start performing better against McCain after those victories. An important pro-Obama finding from these polls is just how utterly myopic and stupefying her campaign's argument about "states that don't matter" actually is. Obama puts a whole range of supposedly deep red states into play, such as Alaska, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, and even Texas (although Clinton doesn't do too bad in Texas herself). There are other ways to win outside of the 2000 and 2004 paradigm. To insist that there is no way to break out of the electoral maps of recent elections is not only depressing fatalistic about Democratic chances, but it actually reinforces the Obama campaign's assertion about Clinton not being able to break out of the political arguments of the past. A new map is clearly possible, as long as we put the effort into actually running a 50-state campaign. Heavy Democratic campaigning in Texas has even put that state into play (and heavy Democratic campaigning in Ohio has virtually put that state out of play). Over the next two months, I salivate over what heavy Democratic campaigning in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana can accomplish.

h., #16 thanks for posting the SurveyUSA numbers...

But the numbers don't tell the whole story.

Chris Bowers from OpenLeft analyzes the numbers:

Survey USA has released fifty-state polls for the general election. When looking at this data, keep in mind that about one in twenty polls is way, way off (there are 100 polls here). Here is the Clinton vs. McCain map, which is Clinton 276-262 McCain:

Solid Clinton--77 (eleven or more points): AR, DC, IL, MA, NY, RI
Lean Clinton--126 (six to ten points): CA, CT, FL, ME, MD, OH, VT
Toss Up--135 (five points or less): DE, HI, IA, MI, MN, MO, NJ, NM, OR, PA, TN, WA, WV, WI
Lean McCain--136 (six to ten points): AL, CO, KS, KY, LA, MS, NV, NH, NC, OK, SC, TX, VA
Solid McCain--65 (eleven or more points): AK, AZ, GA, ID, IN, MT, NE, ND, SD, UT, WY

And here is the Obama vs. McCain map, which is Obama 280-258 McCain:

Solid Obama--163 (eleven or more points): CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, NY, RI, VT, WA, WI
Lean Obama--66 (six to ten points): CO, DE, MA, MN, NM, OH, OR
Toss-up--186: (five points or less): AK, FL, MI, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, PA, TX, VA
Lean McCain--25 (six to ten points): IN, MO, MT
Solid McCain--98 (eleven or more points): AL, AZ, AR, GA, ID, KY, LA, MS, OK, TN, UT, WV, WY

Despite seemingly similarity in their performance against McCain, this breakdown shows real differences between Obama and Clinton in the general election. Against Obama, McCain's "solid" and "lean" states only add up to 123, while Obama's add up to 229. In a matchup against Clinton, the "solid" and "lean" states are of equal size: 201 for McCain, and 203 for Clinton. In other words, while McCain and Clinton appear evenly matched, McCain is only able to keep it close against Obama by running up a series of narrow wins in the toss-up states.

An important pro-Clinton caveat on these polls is that they were taken before Clinton's successful night on March 4th. Since whoever has the momentum in the primary tends to have the momentum in the general election, I expect her to start performing better against McCain after those victories. An important pro-Obama finding from these polls is just how utterly myopic and stupefying her campaign's argument about "states that don't matter" actually is. Obama puts a whole range of supposedly deep red states into play, such as Alaska, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, and even Texas (although Clinton doesn't do too bad in Texas herself). There are other ways to win outside of the 2000 and 2004 paradigm. To insist that there is no way to break out of the electoral maps of recent elections is not only depressing fatalistic about Democratic chances, but it actually reinforces the Obama campaign's assertion about Clinton not being able to break out of the political arguments of the past. A new map is clearly possible, as long as we put the effort into actually running a 50-state campaign. Heavy Democratic campaigning in Texas has even put that state into play (and heavy Democratic campaigning in Ohio has virtually put that state out of play). Over the next two months, I salivate over what heavy Democratic campaigning in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana can accomplish.

I thought it might be interesting to take a look at the results if we assume the SUSA polls are systematically off one way or the other to see how strong each candidates support may be and how much they could stand to pick up. I considered the states that would flip if each candidate did 5 points worse or better than expected. First for Hillary:

if we add +5 to her polling numbers
McCain 233
Clinton 305

and -5
McCain 321
Clinton 217

This looks fairly symmetric. She does have a good number of states with narrow leads in which she has to play defense that she could loose and some that she could pick up.

For Obama the numbers are a bit different:

+5 to his numbers
McCain 137
Obama 401

-5 to his numbers
McCin 277
Obaa 261

So... Landslide potential for Obama. Plus, he has a much lower need to play defense in states that he is winning. And he has a 50 state strategy which will eat up into GOP resources and will will result in more House and Senate wins even if he may not in a state in general election. This will create a mandate and the majority for Democrats if they want to get the things done. 4-10 years from now, who knows? There may not be any red states, only purple states.

Markos Moulitsas from Daily Kos also analyzed the results, and noted that:

"It's amazing how many non-swing states will suddenly be, well, swing states this year, like Texas, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Some of these states become competitive depending on the candidate, like Arkansas and Tennessee for Clinton, and just about everything west of the Mississippi for Obama.

… In all, Obama outperforms Clinton in 33 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming."

From the beginning, Obama campaign has understood the importance of competing in every state, and have built a broad base of support across the country. The result is a clear advantage in November's race, with a real possibility of redrawing the electoral map.

DailyKos Poll:
March 7

Do you think the Democrats will win the Presidency this year?
Yes
31% 1021 votes

Only if Hillary Clinton is the nominee
2% 78 votes

Only if Barack Obama is the nominee
51% 1667 votes

Only if they run on the same ticket
1% 44 votes

Only if somebody other than one of them is picked in Denver
1% 30 votes

No
5% 157 votes

I do not know
6% 206 votes

I do not care
1% 24 votes

Other
0% 16 votes

| 3243 votes

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/7/1183/86606/786/471096

Looking for the map-changing campaign

"The Clinton campaign may not have Bob Shrum in its ranks, but Mark Penn, Harold Ickes, and the rest of that gang seem just as committed as ever to their shrinking pool of "swing states". The Clinton gang is doing what Mark Warner decries -- minimizing, belittling, and ignoring southern and western "red" states and claiming that the only states that matter are, predictably, the states that "mattered" last election (Ohio and Florida).

But that's the old map, and it's an obsolete one.

One campaign is irrationally attached to that old map, while the other is focused on being a map changer -- spurring Democratic victories in unexpected places and generating a true national mandate for change.

It's easy to see which campaign is which."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/12/14325/7309/809/475157