Electoral results McCain vs. Clinton compared to McCain vs Obama

[agcatter]

It's early I know, but I'm already seeing some clear trends in general election individual state polls.

Clinton runs stronger than Obama in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania

Rasmussen Pennsylvania:

McCain     48              McCain    46
Clinton     42              Obama    38


Survey USA  Ohio

I don't hardly ever agree with Opedo, but there is a definite racial effect here I believe with regard to blue collar economic Democrats who won't vote for Obama.  I think we saw some of that in the NH Primary in blue collar industrial precincts in Manchester.

McCain     48              McCain    50
Clinton     46              Obama    43

Clinton runs better in border and southern states

Survey USA Kentucky

McCain    51               McCain    54
Clinton    41               Obama    35

Sooner Poll  Oklahoma

McCain beats Clinton by 30, Obama by 40

Survey USA  Alabama

McCain    50              McCain    54
Clinton    43              Obama    36

[agcatter]

If you want further proof of what I believe to be the racial effect try this:

Survey USA  Massachusetts (released 12 - 21)

Clinton   53              Obama   47
McCain   43              McCain   43

Again, I know its early and there are other components beside race, but this at least looks suspicious

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Edwards is the strongest in the general election. Too bad that he doesn't have much of a chance at the nomination.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Neither Obama, Edwards, Hillary, or any other liberal senator will be the next President of the United States.   End of story.  The Democrats lost their chance at the White House when folks like Bayh and Warner dropped out one year ago.    Obama, Edwards, or Hillary will not win Ohio.  They will not win Missouri.  In all likelihood, Florida is gone too.   And they will most certainly not win in Virginia.    The Democrats are now in danger of losing their blue state firewalls such as PA, Oregon, NH, and Wisc.   

Presidential elections are a game of strategy, and in 2008, Democrats fail.   Try again in 2012.

[agcatter]

I'm not sure whether Obama or Hillary can win or not, but I'm definitely glad Warner dropped out.

The only two Democrats elected President in the last 40 years were Carter once, and Bill Clinton twice.  Both were perceived as being somewhat moderate enough as to avoid the tag "liberal" by enough voters to make it across the finish line.  Of course, Carter lost his reelection bid after 4 years governing as a liberal and people realized he was no moderate conservative.  Of course, he gone on to prove he is actually very liberal.

Warner would have been a slam dunk.

[Sam Spade]

Too early to be placing too much emphasis on polling. 

Obama's weakness in state-by-state is that he has not yet "pulled together the base" of Democrats to vote for him, as Hillary already has.  Of course, she's also united Republicans and a certain contingent of Indys against her, which he hasn't, but this affects polling less.  History says the first thing should happen, but I wonder since he's black.  Hard to tell about the second.

Anyway, these are the types of states I would expect race to have an effect.

[agcatter]

In 1968, we saw George Wallace with a certain appeal to northern blue collar workers who were normal cogs in the Democratic coalition.  He scored in the very low double digits I believe in Michigan, Pa, and Ohio.  I suspect the same forces are at play here in 2008.  This could be a big problem for him in a general election.