Clinton Will Build Her Biggest Lead on March 15. Sanders Will Erode It After That.

Don't question the lizard. The lizard knows.

by Gaius Publius

I'm keeping this short to put a very simple idea into your head. Because of the way the Democratic Party voting calendar is structured this year, Clinton's largest lead will occur on March 15. After that, most of Sanders' strongest states will vote.

What this means is simple:

• Hillary Clinton will grow her lead until the March 15 states have voted.

• Bernie Sanders will erase that lead — partly or completely — after March 15.

• How much of Clinton's lead he will erase depends on your not buying what the media is selling — that the contest is over.

• In most scenarios where Sanders wins, he doesn't retake the lead until June 7, when five states including California cast their ballots.

March 15 is the Ides of March; a good way to remember the date. The message — gear up for a battle after the Ides of March, and don't let the establishment media tell you what to think. They won't be right until the last state has voted.

If you want to stop reading here, this is all you need to know.

The Data

Now the data. One of the best data-stitians I've come across is a diarist at Daily Kos named MattTX. Matt is very good, professionally good, at this stuff. In a long, carefully-reasoned diary, "How Bernie Sanders can win the Democratic nomination," he lays out six scenarios for the race, in five of which Bernie Sanders wins the nomination (the other is a current baseline with no momentum). He presents them in a parallel fashion, and each presentation differs only in changing a small set of assumptions. Once you understand how to read the first one, you can read the others easily.

The first three scenarios are "static" — they assume that the national polling remains fixed throughout the race. He then runs the numbers on each state race for the following assumptions:

• The polling stays fixed at Clinton 49%–Sanders 42%, a 7-point Clinton lead.
• The polling stays fixed at Clinton 45%–Sanders 45%, a dead heat.
• The polling stays fixed at Sanders 47%–Clinton 44%, a 3-point Sanders lead.

Then he looks at what "momentum" looks like in a number of recent presidential contests (it actually can take a number of shapes) and chooses a momentum pattern associated with Obama's win over Clinton in 2008. (Click here to see that chart.)

His final three scenarios are "dynamic" variations of his static ones, with shifting momentum off the current baseline. In each of these, Sanders wins, each time overcoming the bulge in the Clinton lead that comes on March 15. In the narrowest of these winning scenarios, the March 15 bulge is quite large, +184 delegates for Clinton.

Note that the data in Matt's piece was run prior to South Carolina's results, so Sanders has some additional ground to make up. Still, Sanders is right to "take it to the convention." Most of his strength comes after most of Clinton's, and Sanders could easily surprise in his states, just as Clinton will surprise in some of hers. Again, we won't know who has the lead for good until after California and four additional states vote in early June.

Bottom line — What looks bad for Sanders supporters on March 1 will look worse a few weeks later. But stay heartened. Whatever the result through March, this isn't over until June, after Sanders' best states have voted as well.

(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out, go here; you can adjust the split any way you like at the link. If you'd like to "phone-bank for Bernie," go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!)


GP
 

Are the Wheels Coming Off in the Democratic Primary? A Roundup.

Carl Bernstein explains why the White House is "horrified" at the state of the Clinton campaign, which they (and Bernstein) favor.

by Gaius Publius

This is a roundup of recent pieces with a common theme — the wheels may be coming off the effort to keep the insider game alive on the Democratic side. Note, for example, in the Bernstein portion, the great concern by the White House that Hillary may not be able to take the crown.

I didn't expect to see this explosion of concern. Putting all this in one place makes interesting reading. I do encourage clicking through. The sections I touch on are listed below, if you want to skip around, please do. The assembly of all this worry is interesting. Our sections are:

◾ Reuters: Sanders / Clinton race in "dead heat"
◾ Carl Bernstein: White House "horrified" ... Clinton "blowing up" her campaign
◾ Bill Curry: "It’s almost over for Hillary ... a mass insurrection against a rigged system"

For the latter sections, click the links above to go there directly.

Reuters: Sanders, Clinton in "dead heat"

Let's start with this, the data, hot off the Reuters presses:

Exclusive: Presidential hopefuls Sanders, Clinton in dead heat - Reuters/Ipsos poll

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has erased Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's wide lead for the Democratic presidential nomination since the start of year, putting the two in a dead heat nationally, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Clinton leads Sanders 48 percent to 45 percent among Democratic voters, according to the poll of 512 Americans, conducted Feb. 2-5 following the Iowa caucus. The poll has a credibility interval of 5 percentage points.

The data sets the stage. Now for the gnashing of teeth, which strongly indicates these polls aren't very far off.

Carl Bernstein: White House "horrified" that "Hillary Clinton is blowing up her campaign."

For reaction, let's begin with Carl Bernstein, speaking recently on CNN. This is enormously interesting. Note that Bernstein, though clear-eyed about her vulnerabilities, is coming to this as a Hillary Clinton supporter — not a criticism, just something to note. He's open about that in the interview.

I hope you have time to read or listen to this through. Bernstein is well connected, and he has a lot to pass on (italicized emphasis and ellipses mine):

Bernstein: There is a huge story going on. I've spent part of this weekend talking to people in the White House. They are horrified at how Hillary Clinton is blowing up her own campaign.

And they're worried that the Democrats could blow -- they are horrified that the whole business of the transcripts, accepting the money -- that she could blow the Democrats' chance for White House. They want her to win. Obama wants her to win.

But Sanders has shown how vulnerable she is. These ethical lapses have tied the White House up in knots. They don't know what to do. They're beside themselves. And now, you've got a situation with these transcripts a little like Richard Nixon and his tapes that he stonewalled on and didn't release.

At this point CNN put up a graphic — "Total Hillary Clinton speech income from "big banks" 2013-2014: At least $1.8 million for at least 8 speeches" (highlight theirs).

Then the host asks, "You're saying this is akin to the [Watergate] tapes?" (a significant question given Bernstein's role in Watergate). Bernstein replies:

Bernstein: No, what I'm saying that if she stonewalls on it and does not release them and enables the Republicans to paint her again into a corner. This is not just a vast right-wing conspiracy that is causing her problems. She has caused herself these problems. The server is not the vast right-wing conspiracy. It's Hillary Clinton deciding that she could put a server in her closet, the same with these transcripts, the same with accepting this money in a presidential year when she knew that she was going to probably be running for president.

To the people in the White House I talked to, it is unfathomable that she did this and has endangered President Obama's legacy. As I say, they are terrified at this point and they want Bernie Sanders to not do well [in New Hampshire] on Tuesday and Hillary to do well. Because if this keeps going like that, they see real problems ahead.

The host asks about Clinton's shrugging defense of having been paid $600,000 by Goldman Sachs, "I don't know; that's what they offered."

Host: "So what should she have said?"

Bernstein: "I can't advise her. Maureen Dowd in her column tomorrow calls that answer obscene. ... Some of this is unanswerable because it represents such terrible judgment, which is what people in the White House are saying. They're just dumbfounded by this and want her to get back on track."

The host then offers that maybe Clinton didn't know she was going to run when she made those speeches. The reply:

Bernstein: "It's disingenuous. She knew she might [run for president]. And this has been a problem I say in the last pages of "A Woman in Charge," my book on Hillary written before she ran the last time, she has had a difficult problem with the truth going back to the Arkansas years. It's not about outright lying. It's about obfuscation. It's about not being transparent.

[Note this heavy praise] "She is so qualified to be President of the United States. She is so much in the right lane on Democratic issues, she has the experience, and yet she keeps tripping herself up. That's what she did in the last campaign, and that's what she's been doing in this campaign.

"She's got to get herself righted, meaning up-straight and moving forward. She might have to show some humility and start explaining that she has exercised some terrible judgment here. I don't know what the answer is for her to do, except to keep going forward, but she's got a big problem here.

And then comes this exchange on Sanders' "socialism," which Bernstein — conventionally — sees as a problem. The host pushes back on that.

Host: "Where does this go?"

Bernstein: "I don't know where it goes. I think the good news for Hillary Clinton in some ways, that Bernie Sanders, a self-described "socialist," is out of touch with mainstream America..."

Host: "But that wasn't reflected in Iowa..."

Bernstein: "Exactly, and particularly with young people he is tuning in and touching a nerve in mainstream America and with young women, which is Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare.

"In fact, I think you have to go back to the candidacy of Bobby Kennedy in 1968 -- and I don't want to care Sanders and Kennedy in some regards, but this is a movement. He's right, Sanders. He has started a movement. And that, too, has got the White House very upset."

Keep that "touching a nerve with young women" in mind, especially as you read about the "BernieBro problem" in the Clinton-supporting press. Bernie has far less of a BernieBro problem than Clinton has a "Feminists for Bernie" problem, based on the available data so far.

The host then raises the question that the Clinton campaign keeps raising as their differentiator — (paraphrased) "Pragmatism vs. passion. Doesn't she have that passion?"

Bernstein: "The last pages of my book are about her passion, her passion for America, her passion for doing good things for the people of this country ... and she has that fire, she has that passion, but so does Bernie Sanders. ...It's possible she is not in tune with her time and her country and her party. And somehow she has to get herself aligned with whatever this new strain of economic populism.

"She's got a problem. If she's cozy with Goldman Sachs, and she's got transcripts that she can't release that show her cozying up to Goldman Sachs, it's a problem. It would help her if she could get these transcripts out there. She's said, judge me by her record. Part of her record is what she has said to these investment bankers in these meetings, and we ought to be able to know what she has said."

I like Carl Bernstein and don't begrudge him his insider perspective, especially since he's doing a good honest job as a reporter. His bottom line — "It's possible she is not in tune with her time" — is fairly astute. Especially when coupled with "If she's cozy with Goldman Sachs, and she's got transcripts that she can't release that show her cozying up to Goldman Sachs, it's a problem."

And note, he wants those transcripts released as well, and for the right reason. Voters really do have a right to read them.

Bill Curry: "It's almost over for Hillary. This is a mass insurrection"

Now Bill Curry writing in Salon. He talks first about the establishment-rigged process (my emphasis):

It’s almost over for Hillary: This election is a mass insurrection against a rigged system 

It would be hard to overstate what Bernie Sanders has already achieved in his campaign for president, or the obstacles he’s had to surmount in order to achieve it. Not only has he turned a planned Hillary Clinton coronation into an exercise in grass-roots democracy, he’s reset the terms of the debate. We are edging closer to the national conversation we so desperately need to have. If we get there, all credit goes to Bernie.

Many of those obstacles were put in place by Democratic national party chair and Clinton apparatchik Deborah Wasserman Schultz. Without pretense of due process, Schultz slashed the number of 2016 debates to six, down from 26 in 2008, and scheduled as many as she could on weekends when she figured no one would be watching. ...

Sanders got bagged again in Iowa, this time by a state party chair, one Andrea McGuire. Like Schultz, McGuire’s specialty is high-dollar fund raising, and like Schultz she was deeply involved in Clinton’s 2008 campaign. Under the esoteric rules of the Iowa Democratic caucuses, and after a string of lucky coin tosses, Clinton eked out a 700.52 to 696.86 margin, not in votes cast but in a mysterious commodity known as “delegate equivalents.” ...

All evidence indicates Sanders won the popular vote [in Iowa]. It isn’t a minor point. If the public knew he won the only vote anybody understands or cares about, Clinton wouldn’t be “breathing a sigh of relief,” she’d be hyperventilating. McGuire refuses to release vote totals. She says keeping them a secret is an Iowa tradition. So what if it is?

And about the rigged press coverage:

Throughout the campaign the press has been nearly as big an obstacle for Sanders as the party. Even jaded political junkies were startled when the Tyndall Report exposed the media blackout of Sanders. In 2015, ABC News devoted 261 minutes to the 2016 campaign. Donald Trump got 81 minutes. Bernie Sanders got 20 seconds. Nearly as harmful is the dismissive tone of the cable commentariat, and I don’t mean just Fox News.

CNN has larded up ‘the best political team on television’ with partisans, including Bush acolyte Ana Navarro and Trump minion Jeffrey Lord. On the Democratic side, Paul Begala advises a Clinton Super PAC; David Axelrod was Obama’s guru; Donna Brazile a DNC chair; Van Jones an Obama staffer; David Gergen a Clinton advisor. All are bright, honorable people, but it’s hard to report on a peasant revolt from inside the castle. (The network just added Sanders sympathizer Bill Press to the mix, but it’s far too little and too late.)

Things aren’t all that different over at MSNBC though to its credit it lets reporters do more of its analysis. ... The whole press corps still treats politics as theater or sport. No one ever explains policy on a post-debate show.

And:

What makes the media blackout of Sanders an even greater travesty is that it was imposed over a period of many months in which he led all 21 other candidates in both parties in nearly every general election poll. When a self-described socialist leads every poll, something historic is happening. ... Even horse-race reporters should have seen that a story so big ...

Something historic is indeed happening, or about to happen. There's much more on that subject in the piece. Curry dismisses Clintons's three main arguments (as he sees them) — her electability, her greater ability to govern, and her greater "loyalty to the [Democratic] establishment."

And yet, with all that rigging and all that obfuscation of the core economic issues:

My guess is the middle class sees what [Sanders] sees and wants what he wants: a revolution. If he can continue to drive the debate, they may get one.

At which point, you should refer back to Curry's headline. "It's almost over for Hillary." I'm not so sure yet, but Curry — and maybe Bernstein — appear much more certain.

Where We Stand Now

Nationally, Democratic voters had been supporting Clinton by a more than 2-to-1 margin at the beginning of the year. Sanders has narrowed that lead considerably over the past several weeks, to a "dead heat" in the most recent polls.

I'm not ready to wring my Sanders hands the way the White House is wring their Clinton hands, but I do want to see what's happening in the South. I'm optimistic that the tide is turning, but we're still in the second quarter (sorry for the sports metaphor) with the momentum just beginning to turn our way. We'll see.

This is the most interesting election of your life, I'm willing to bet. Also the most consequential.

(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out, go here; you can adjust the split any way you like at the link. If you'd like to "phone-bank for Bernie," go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!)

GP
 

Poll: Sanders Is More Electable than Clinton in the General Election

Recent Quinnipiac poll results (source; click to enlarge)

by Gaius Publius

I've covered this story before, but the latest Quinnipiac poll confirms it. Bernie Sanders is not unelectable — just the opposite, in fact. Sanders is more electable than Clinton in head-to-head polling against Republican candidates in the general election.

But to win in the general, he has to survive the Democrats, including the many in the party whose support for Clinton hinges on the "fact" that "Bernie's got nice policies, but he can't win." He can't win against Clinton if the Democratic Party unites against him. But his electability against the Republican is beyond question at this point.

Quinnipiac has a write-up here, with a click-through to the pdf of the data. But the bottom line is well captured in the graphic above. 

• Against Trump — Sanders +8, Clinton +6
• Against Cruz — Sanders +10, Clinton +5
• Against Carson — Sanders +6, Clinton +3
• Against Rubio — Sanders +1, Clinton +1

The first two results especially are significant, since these are, at this point, the most likely nominees. (Quinnipiac has Trump leading handily at 27% with the remaining three clustered about about 17%.)

In the head-to-head with Clinton, Sanders' is losing some ground. The spread is now 30 points in her favor, 60%–30%.

Sanders Captures More Republican Voters than Clinton

As I've predicted (and I'm not alone by a long shot), Sanders and his message have greater appeal to Republican voters. Drilling down into the results (pdf), we find that while Clinton loses Republican voters against Trump 7%–82% (question 6), Sanders does better, 11%–80% (question 10). Sanders also gets 52% of Independents versus Clinton's 45%.

These results are similar to those against Cruz. Sanders gets almost 10% more of the independent vote versus Cruz than Clinton does — 51% goes to Sanders versus 43% to Clinton. In addition, Sanders' net favorable rating is +13, the highest of all candidates, to Clinton's –7 (and Trump's –22).

Bottom line: It's impossible to make the case that Sanders can't win in the general election, at least based on data to date. I understand that competing campaigns — Clinton's, O'Malley's — have a reason to perpetuate that illusion. But for the media to treat it as factual is journalistic malpractice at best, or loading the dice at worse.

Are the Dice Loaded Against Sanders?

I think it's clear they are, and not based just on the behavior of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC's debate scheduling. More than one Democratic insider has touted Clinton's greater electability, or worse, Sanders' unelectability, as if they were facts. This clearly loads the dice.

Why? There are likely many reasons, from the Clinton campaign's arm-twisting to people's desire to curry favor to the person they see as their next bread-and-butterer — their next employment opportunity, media-access gatekeeper, or party-advancement skid-greaser.

But beyond that there's this, a factor I consider the most powerful of all. Just as the climate-solutions world is largely invested in incrementalist proposals — proposals that don't disrupt the current economic or political order — so the world of political insiders, inhabited by both parties, is invested in keeping the rigged money flowing, and flowing to both parties, from the rigged "insider game." This story's been told on these pages more times than can be counted — for example, here. The fact is sad but true:

Everyone else who's running [for president], on both sides, is an insider playing within — and supporting — the "insider game," the one that keeps insiders wealthy and outsiders struggling, the one where the wealthy and their retainers operate government for their benefit only. What sets Sanders apart is his determination to dismantle that game, to take it apart and send its players home (back to the private sector) or to jail.

As much as anything else, Sanders' threat to take apart the insider game accounts for his great popularity. It also represents one of Clinton's greatest vulnerabilities.

Two friends talking

But Sanders will have to defeat the Democratic insiders protecting that game to get into the general election. You can help.

First, explode the myth that he can't be elected, every chance you get. It's a fairy tale and deserves fairy-tale treatment. Second, click to help him here, if you're so inclined. (You can adjusts the split any way you like at the link.) Thanks!

GP

New Poll Shows Sanders in Landslide Over Both Trump and Bush

Bill Maher and Ann Coulter in June 2015 discussing the prospect of a Sanders presidency (from The Thom Hartmann Show)

by Gaius Publius

I put up the video above to show, again, that many including Ann Coulter think Sanders would be the more formidable Democratic candidate for president in the general election. The recent McClatchey-Marist poll seems to confirm Sanders' strength. From The Hill (my emphasis):

In new shock poll, Sanders has landslides over both Trump and Bush

By Brent Budowsky, columnist, The Hil

In a new McClatchy-Marist poll, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) leads Republican candidate Donald Trump by a landslide margin of 12 percentage points, 53 to 41. In the McClatchy poll, Sanders also leads former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) by a landslide margin of 10 points, 51 to 41.

The huge Sanders advantage over Trump is not new. In the last four match-up polls between them reported by Real Clear Politics, Sanders defeated Trump by margins of 12, 9, 9 and 2 percentage points.

The huge Sanders advantage over Bush is new. In previous match-ups, the polling showed Sanders and Bush running virtually even, with Bush holding a 1-point lead over Sanders in most of the polls. Future polls will be needed to test whether the huge Sanders lead over Bush in the McClatchy poll will be repeated in future polling or whether the McClatchy poll is an outlier.

So Sanders leads Bush by 10 points and Trump by 12 points. In the rest of this poll (pdf; search on "Sanders"):

• Sanders leads Marco Rubio by 3 points, 48%–45%. 
• He leads Ted Cruz by 12 points, 51%–39%. 
• He leads Carly Fiorina by 14 points, 53%–39%. 
• He trails Ben Carson by 2 points, 45%–47%.

Though Budowsky doesn't mention it, the poll also has similar numbers for Hillary Clinton:

• Clinton leads Jeb Bush by 8 points, 42%–44% (about the same as her other 2015 leads and down from her December 2014 13-point lead). 
• She leads Donald Trump by 15 points, 56%–41% (about the same as her earlier leads).
• She leads Marco Rubio by 5 points, 50%–45% (the same as her July 2015 lead and down from her April 2014 16-point lead).
• She leads Ted Cruz by 10 points, 53%–43% (down from her March 2015 13-point lead). 
• She leads Carly Fiorina by 10 points, 53%–43% (down from her July 2015 18-point lead)
• She leads Ben Carson by 2 points, 50%–48% (down from her 10-point July 2015 lead).

McClatchey-Marist apparently has no earlier polling data on Sanders versus the Republicans, but the narrowing of Clinton's earlier leads in almost all head-to-head contests is concerning.

Sanders Is Fully Competitive in the General Election

The results of this poll, if it's not an outlier, are clear. Sanders is fully competitive in the general election. If I were betting on this race, I'd put Republican money on either Trump or Cruz, with a side bet on Rubio to hedge. In all three of those races — Sanders versus any of them, Clinton versus any of them — the results are similar. The Democrat wins by 10 points or more.

Here's the significance of this poll for Budowsky:

For today, there are two issues these polls present. First, the national reporting of the presidential campaign completely fails to reflect Sanders's strength in a general election, especially against Trump, and against Bush as well.

Second, and perhaps more important, Sanders's strength in general election polling gives credence to the argument I have been making in recent years, that American voters favor progressive populist positions which, if taken by Democrats in the general election, would lead to a progressive populist Democratic president and far greater Democratic strength in Congress.

I have to agree. First, the myth that Sanders is not electable, is just that — a media-fostered (and for obvious reasons, Clinton-supported) myth. The media, with its billionaire and corporate owners, would never want to see someone elected who would take apart the money-soaked, self-dealing Insider Game they're all complicit in running.

Second, while these polls probably factor in Bernie Sanders' greatest perceived weakness — that he's "too far left" to be elected — I don't think they touch what may be Clinton's Achilles Heel. You can see a reference to it in the Ann Coulter comment above:

(Bernie Sanders) cares about the American middle class, (the) working class. Hillary doesn't. She's like the elected Republican — she cares about the Chamber of Commerce.

I don't agree with that statement entirely. I think Clinton cares about the working class, especially the poor, and the Chamber of Commerce. Both.

Clinton has a second Achilles Heel as well, and it's not all her fault. I think for almost a decade the Republicans have amassed a steaming pile of totally irrelevant, god-awful crap, and they're just dying to unleash it against her in the general election. What the Republicans do, if they do do it (yes, you read the pun right), won't be her fault. But fault is not what matters. If your argument for a Democrat president is the Supreme Court, you want the most electable one, period.

Is Sanders the Most Electable Democrat?

Listen to Coulter again. For what it's worth, I've argued for a while that in the general election, Sanders keeps all of the Democratic base and attracts some Republicans. In contrast, Clinton loses some of the Democratic base and energizes Republican votes against her. Just on the odds, I'd put my money on Sanders.

(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders in this race. If you like, you can help him here; adjust the split any way you wish at the link.)

GP

EITHER OBAMA OR HILLARY WOULD BEAT McCAIN IN ELECTORAL VOTES IF THE EELCTION WERE HELD TODAY

Survey USA just released these two maps that show which states would vote for Hillary vs McCain (top) and Obama vs McCain if the election were to be held today-- before the much vaulted Republican smear machine kicks into action.





Highlights of course are that Hillary takes Pennsylvania, Florida, Arkansas, New Jersey and West Virginia while Obama doesn't. Similarly Obama wins Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, Michigan, Iowa, Virginia, New Hampshire and a piece of Nebraska (one of the only states to split electoral votes), which Hillary doesn't. It's based on their current polling but it strains credulity that McCain has a real shot-- regardless of who the candidate is-- in New Jersey, New Hampshire, Washington, Oregon, Iowa, or Michigan.

Either would beat McCain, Obama by a few more votes. You need 270 to win and Obama gets 280 and Hillary 276. Is there wiggle room? You bet, plenty all around. There are toss-up states and states that are only leaning one way or the other as well.

In the Hillary vs McCain match-up, only 6 states (77 electoral votes) are solidly in her corner: Arkansas, DC, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island. Another 7 states (126 electoral votes) are leaning in her direction: California, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Ohio and Vermont. 14 states (135 electoral votes are toss ups: Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. McCain has 11 states (65 electoral votes) solidly in his camp: Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. There are 13 states (136 electoral votes) leaning his way: Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.

Now when the match-up is between Obama and McCain, things change fairly significantly-- and the impact of presidential coattails-- or, in Hillary's case, lack thereof-- becomes apparent.

Suddenly the number of solid states double (with the number of solid electoral votes going from 77 to 163!): California, Connecticut, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. 7 more states (66 electoral votes) lean towards Obama: Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio and Oregon. There are fewer toss-up states (12 vs 14) but with more electoral votes at stake (186 vs 135), mostly because Obama puts Texas into play: Alaska, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia. Obama pushes 2 more states (13) into the solid McCain column (with 98 electoral votes): Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Far fewer states (3) lean towards McCain though (25 electoral votes): Indiana, Missouri and Montana. Look at the numbers carefully. Obama is far more in the lead than the close superficial numbers would indicate on first look.