Ha ha, I like how Clinton does better without a primary bounce than Obama does with a primary bounce.
1% isn't really doing better.
Have you seen the latest SUSA Ohio poll? She's doing a lot better.
In these polls, Obama never seems to break 50, and that should be cause for concern because of all the positive coverage he's been getting and the tendency of undecideds to break against him in the primaries.
You seem to warping Clinton into somehow a stronger GE candidate
1% in Missouri is negligible. She's been significantly behind Obama in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and even New York. She is outright losing states like Oregon and Washington. She gets absolutely decimated out West while Obama is proving himself more than competitive. She does better than Obama in Ohio but that isn't "cause for concern" considering he was still beating McCain there. Hillary is a horrible GE candidate.
I disagree about Pennsylvania. Besides Ohio Obama's also doing worse in states like Massachusetts, Florida, Missouri, West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and most states in the Southeastern United States. The problem for Obama though is that currently, although the polls show him doing better, he seems to be winning mostly in states that the Democrat already needs to carry, plus Western states, and this is during his "primary bounce". You can argue about the size of the primary bounce but the candidate who is seen as winning the most press coverage at the moment seems to get an advantage.
A huge chunk of electoral votes come from the populist areas that Ohio and Missouri border on and partially encompass. Those areas will be a problem for Obama.
