Right before the Democratic convention of 1992, Bill Clinton was in THIRD, behind both Bush and Perot. Lots of analysts explained that he could not win.  He was too injured by various stories and scandals.

Given this, I'm not too bowled over by analysis in March about an event that it going to take place in November.  

Just think...8-9 months ago, Hillary Clinton was in a far different place in the polls than she is now.  Might there be additional shifts 8-9 months going forward?

This entire link had 2 links total

which raises the question what are you basing your conclusions on?

err sorry entire post has 2 links

and i would challenge any hillary support to post a diary that details the MATH of how she can win.

sure you say she can win PA and then go on to win after that,

but will any of you right now make a diary detailing how you believe she can win 60% in EVERY contest that is left so that she can get the lead in the popular vote,

or show your math for how she gets the lead in the popular vote?

would 55% wins in 10 contests get her the win (answer is no) I challenge 1 supporter to do the Math, since its never reliabe when it comes from anyone else and since the Clinton campaign never releases their math,

I said this earlier and I mean it

I will donate $100 to her campagin is one of her supporters actually does a detailed post on the MATH of a clinton win.

$500 if you can get a major blogger to quote it or repeat it, and state that they stand by the math.

(front page on MyDD would count if they honest state they will state their journalistic integrity on the math)

will anyone take this challenge?

Hillary can counteract McCain with the White female vote. Obama in no way, shape or form will get anywhere near that 53% mark against McCain. He will be way down into the 30% margin at best.

As a Union member, my main issue with Obama as the nominee is his weakness with several KEY democratic blocks. And his weakness  with these groups are much more than some small issue that can be easily fixed by speeches & ads.

There are 5 key democratic groups that Obama needs to carry In November. But if the elections were today or even next month- he would not carry them & lose the general election by huge electoral margins.

a) White Senior Citizens
b) Reagan Democrats
c) Lower Income white women
d) Latinos
e) Asians

This is reality.

Whether we accept or not, Obama's RACE is a factor here. His inexperience is also a big factor.

Sorry but even if Obama spends $100 million in Ads & makes speeches everyday until November, these groups will have a tough time voting for Obama.

I agree with the growing consensus.

If Obama should lose in November, people like Nancy Pelosi should be challenged as Majority leader.

Many in the left have really put our party in an ackward position.

What does Pelosi know about electability when she represents the Most Liberal district in the nation.
 

mccain's more moderate than obama?  Mr. Iraq for 10,000 years and birthday cake during Katrina and "bomb bomb Iran" and "we have the best healthcare system in the world" and "extend Bush's tax cuts"?

Please.  McCain is toast in the GE.

Very good examination of the facts . Well written, very thoughtful diary.

Replies, in order:

1) This is the "primaries = GE" myth. Failure to carry any particular demographic group, any area, any state in a primary does not automatically imply you will lose them in the GE. Groups, areas, and states may favor the other candidate, but may also favor either candidate of a party. Any argument based on "but Obama (or Clinton) didn't carry <X> in the primary, therefore they will not carry it in the GE" is bogus on its face. You need analysis for the GE to make such a claim.

2) You're picking a poll from a particularly poor period for Obama and hinging a major chunk of your argument on it. Obama has polled significantly better than McCain among Independents for much of the campaign, and far better than Clinton. There's already a fair bit of evidence that Obama will regain a stronger position among independents.

3) This is your weakest argument. See Rasumussen. In notable battleground states, Obama does better in many more than Clinton does. In particular, for the states you mention, Clinton and Obama do equally well in MI and Obama does better in FL than does Clinton. Many of the "smaller states" -- IA, MN, NV, NM, OR, and WI, for instance -- Obama wins or is considerably more competitive in than is Clinton. Obama has a clearer route to any winning EV total you'd care to pick, and a much higher ceiling (350ish EV, vs about 300 for Clinton).

4) There is nothing that could possibly happen in this election, short of Barack Obama himself damning American (and meaning it, unlike Rev. Wright), that would energize the Republican base more than a Clinton candidacy. The Wright flap is exceptionally small potatoes compared to their decade-long hatred of all things Clinton.

Also note that even Republicans agree with Obama's views on race and that 69% of Republicans feel that the Wright flap hasn't changed whether they would vote for Obama. Independents are just about even as to whether they would be more likely or less likely to vote for Obama because of it; the vast majority say it makes no difference.

Obama lost a lot of Republican votes he didn't have anyway, and while it could energize the base, it's not in a particularly strong way, unlike a Clinton candidacy.

5) Back to the "primary = GE" fallacy. It's also not true. Obama has won in the whitest and most asian states in the U.S. Yes, he's running less strongly with whites and latinos than Clinton. That's much more about Democratic voters making a close choice than anything else, and polling data strongly supports that. Obama loses at most 9% of Clinton voters (and Clinton loses 7.5% of Obama voters). There are numerous sources in TX that show that the Latino community was making a decision between two good candidates, for instance.

Obama has a very good chance against McCain, and will have an even better one when the race is settled and McCain starts taking real shots.

Another myth is "Obama will take the blue state when he's DEM nominee.

The poll showed he level with McCain in MS.  If he can't beat McCain in MS, where else he is going to do that.

After the truth about Wright came out, the chance of him winning the red state is out of the question.  

He can't win GE.

Dicey for both. The Primary result's not that big an indicator, except in terms of the youth vote, always among the tops in the country, helped by at the polls registration.

Hillary's gungrabber image is a big handicap, Obama played it well framing as a Constitutional issue, rather than hunting.

and there was a good reason he never got nodded. If Obama had thrown Wright under the bus, then maybe he would have had a shot. I do, think if he does it now, after some revelations come out more, then he may be able to quell the fire, be like "ooops I didn't know he would say THAT" and then maybe come back

Polls show Obama winning in the fall.

SUSA > your analysis.

Pleased see my diary today and add FLORIDA to your list. 2 nominees since 52 have lost Fl and won the GE. Between Wright's pro-Hamas remarks and this weeks Time article that says a huge # of Floridians won't vote for BHO if their votes aren't counted, he's over.

Excellent diary- I especially liked the insight regarding the Republican base.
Also loved the title! His whole campaign has been a myth fed to the electorate by the MSM.
For a look at how Hillary can win- go to the Electoral college votes. Look to the facts! Winning red states in primaries does not win the GE.
A big win in PA and further wins will about wipe out his popular vote lead (which is not insurmountable, contrary to what the Obama campaign has been insisting.)

There are good sites with great in depth analysis of the voting so far and thoughtful prognosis on the voting yet to come.

I won't give the links as the non-hillary supporters will just go and trash the diaries in an effort to avoid facing the truth.

Keep writing and standing up for the truth!