So OBAMA wins 15 states with 60% plus and CLINTON only 2

Obama won in many places where there were few African Americans, in rural areas, farming areas, few latte drinkers.
I think we need to stop the Clinton and McCain campaigns spinning inaccurate data.

I hope Slinkerwink won't mind me using this:

States & elections won with 60% or more of the vote:
Barack Obama: 15 States + DC + VI

* Virgin Islands (89.9%)
* Idaho (79%)
* Hawaii (76%)
* Alaska (75%)
* District of Columbia (75%)
* Kansas (74%)
* Washington (68%)
* Nebraska (68%)
* Minnesota (67%)
* Colorado (67%)
* Georgia (67%)
* Illinois (65%)
* Virginia (64%)
* Maryland (62%)
* North Dakota (61%)
* Wyoming (61%)
* Mississippi (61%)

Hillary Clinton: 2 States
* Arkansas (70%)
* West Virginia (67%)

I'm looking at those numbers and all I see is defeat for Obama!!! Only Hillary Clinton who everyone loves and has massive respect for and trusts can win!

it doesn't seem that She is in the currently one.

Only West Virginia and Arkansas count.

...Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Georgia, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Mississippi in the GE. It isn't going to happen.

If Pawlenty, our Governor becomes McCain's VP, it won;t be a blowout, but I still think he'll carry the state.

:rofl:

Obama can't even break 30%

:rofl:

:rofl:

It's not nearly as red as everyone wants to think.

See my post below.

Bob Barr may push Obama over the edge in GA.

And by the way, Go Dawgs.

I was very pleasantly surprised :thumbsup:

The general election electorate will likely only be 30% at the max. Democrats typically only get about 20-25% of the white vote in there.

short of political genocide down in Georgia.

Obama can, and will, win Minnesota and probably Kansas. Also, Bob Barr puts Georgia into play for Obama, and only Obama.

In 2004, Bush won Georgia in a landslide (58-41). But more than 0.5% voted for weak Libertarian candidate Badnarik. This time around, the Libertarian candidate is from in-state.

If Barr can steal 5% in GA in November (which is very possible) and African American voters are highly mobilized, which they will be, it could be close. Close enough, in fact, for the Obama campaign to consider putting resources into the state. There are a couple of small pockets but significant pockets of white liberals in the state (Athens, Savannah). If they commit resources, there's no telling what may happen.

And it's not implausible that his campaign won't commit considerable resources there. The state will have 15 electoral college votes in 2008, tied with N. Carolina for most in the South (except for Florida, of course).

Georgia would never be in play for Clinton, but Barr might put it into play for Obama.

Your's is an informative post and you raise a legitimate issue. But what concerns me is that by using total votes in the Democratic primary as being "total votes" is a little misleading and could cause a sense of false security.

For instance in your illustration you show Obama carrying Georgia with 67% of the total.

Actually there were approximately 2,022,000 votes cast on Super Tuesday. Obama got 704,000. Which is good -- but is only 35% of Georgia's total vote that day. And in the general election in 2004, Georgians cast 3,298,000 votes.

My point is that even though Obama may well win Georgia (for instance) -- he has not come anywhere near a majority yet. More people have voted against him than voted for him.

When he is able to get the Democratic message out there as a united message for the party against McCain, he will do quite well. So far he's been in primary mode, when he transitions into GE mode, McCain's numbers will go down. McCain has had a free pass from the media and good name recognition. With that going for him you would think McCain's numbers would be FAR higher than they are. The GE is going to be difficult, but I'm confident that we will take back the WH with Obama.

I'm sure that there are many many uptapped voters in Georgia who will come out for us in Nov

Out of curiosity.

(in which Congressional and other state-level candidates were selected.)

In BOTH Washington and Nebraska, FAR MORE PEOPLE VOTED IN THE PRIMARIES. AND, in both states, Obama won the primaries

by a couple of points each.

I think it would be fair to say that if there were no caucuses, Obama would have FAR fewer "landslide" states than Hillary has had.

1) Most of Obama's victories were caucuses. (Primaries would have sunken the margins..see WA state)
2) They were all before the mid-March revelation of Mr. J Wright.

The WV vote last night was more anti-Obama vs pro-Hillary.

He's got a ton of work ahead of him to patch things up in the next half-year.