Obama surging against Hillary among Democratic voters. HOWEVER

[agcatter]

True that Obama did well vs Clinton among indies and independents.  Given Clinton's struggles with independents in GE matchups, the question becomes, how many indies and Republicans were like me - voting to defeat Clinton.  That we don't know yet.

[Gustaf]

We've always known that an Obama victory in the general election is unlikely due to american racism. 

although that was said before the primaries as well. I don't think there is near as much racism as people claim.

Check the Democratic Oklahoma primary.

Of course, racism does not mean Obama cannot win. To an extent it helps him because it ensures more black votes for him than he would otherwise be getting. Still a net negative though I suspect. The question is really whether his independent support can hold up once his issue positions start to be more well known during the campaign.

Oh, and I wouldn't use Obama's success in DEMOCRATIC primary contests as an indicator of his strength. Kerry won North Dakota in a landslide when the race was still competitive in the 2004 primary. Didn't mean he had any shot at all in the GE.

[Kalimantan]

Oh, and I wouldn't use Obama's success in DEMOCRATIC primary contests as an indicator of his strength. Kerry won North Dakota in a landslide when the race was still competitive in the 2004 primary. Didn't mean he had any shot at all in the GE.

oh, in a normal year, yes. But the sheer size of the turnout and the intensive building of the base and GOTV efforts suggests that maybe, just maybe.....

[Gustaf]

Oh, and I wouldn't use Obama's success in DEMOCRATIC primary contests as an indicator of his strength. Kerry won North Dakota in a landslide when the race was still competitive in the 2004 primary. Didn't mean he had any shot at all in the GE.

oh, in a normal year, yes. But the sheer size of the turnout and the intensive building of the base and GOTV efforts suggests that maybe, just maybe.....

But that is not the point. The point is that the Democratic primary voters of Utah or North Dakota constitute an extremely skewed sample which says nothing about the entire state. Every Democratic state primary is going to be won by some Democrat but it never means that that candidate will win the state in the general election. Bush landslided almost every state in the country in 2000 but still lost many of those. And so on. What does seem to favour Obama is his good results among independent and GOP voters. Again though, those are the ones who chose to participate in a Dem primary. He does poll pretty well againt McCain in GE matchups but not overwhelmingly so.

[Duke 🇺🇸]

the reason so many Independents and Republicans voted for Obama in the primaries was to defeat Hillary in some cases. I know many republicans that voted for him just to see her lose. That doesn't mean they'll vote for him in the general election.

[Democratic Hawk]

Oh, and I wouldn't use Obama's success in DEMOCRATIC primary contests as an indicator of his strength. Kerry won North Dakota in a landslide when the race was still competitive in the 2004 primary. Didn't mean he had any shot at all in the GE.

I doubt very much any Democratic candidate is going to win any of the states which eluded Bill Clinton, save perhaps Virginia. And that includes North Dakota through to Texas, as well as Idaho, Utah and Wyoming, which are as Republican as you can get. Arizona can be put in the safe McCain column too

I still think McCain has problems. There has been a huge enthusiasm gap this primary season in a race, where both party's nominations were, theoretically, wide-open going in. That said I don't see many Republican or conservative malcontents cutting their noses off to spite their faces. A lot of them, however, could well cast anti-Democrat, rather than pro-McCain, ballots. Of course, with McCain having the New York Times busting its gut to do him a good turn , he's well on his way to getting them 'very conservatives' onside. I don't think they'll ever truly trust him, however

It may well be that pragmatic streak among Republicans which has allowed McCain to prevail given his strength among Independents but then the system that was in place to help Giuliani ('winner take all' rules, particularly, in blue states) has, undoubtedly, worked to McCain's advantage following Giuliani's implosion

Obama seems to be generating much support from those who've never engaged in the primary/caucus nominating process and I'd like to see that, as long as his Independent and cross-over support, hold through to November; while the Republican-leaning group, where he could make inroads is among 'upbeats', the young and the optimistic but he needs to address the patriotism question; while the 'New Dealers' (older, blue-collar, moderately hawkish, socially conservative types - yep, Dave 'Hawk' style Democrats but not so much of the old , in my case) are the Democratic group, where McCain will have appeal

Dave

[opebo]

the reason so many Independents and Republicans voted for Obama in the primaries was to defeat Hillary in some cases. I know many republicans that voted for him just to see her lose. That doesn't mean they'll vote for him in the general election.

I'm sure many Republicans did that, but why would independents be interested in going to all the trouble of voting just to defeat Hillary.   It is unlikely.

[NHPolitico]

the reason so many Independents and Republicans voted for Obama in the primaries was to defeat Hillary in some cases. I know many republicans that voted for him just to see her lose. That doesn't mean they'll vote for him in the general election.

I'm sure many Republicans did that, but why would independents be interested in going to all the trouble of voting just to defeat Hillary.   It is unlikely.

Independents don't like her, either. So, the same reason as Republicans.