• one: does anyone really think that no matter who the Dem candidate is, that NY/Calif will go red or that Texas will go blue?

• aren't we comparing apples and oranges here?  If the overwhelming majority (polls say 80%) of HRC and Obama supporters will support the other candidate, doesn't that tell us it that the more important factor is how many vote?  As another reader commented a while back on this: if there are two primaries, one is between two flavors of ice cream, and the other is about cake, that doesn't tell me a whole lot about what happens when the vote is one of those ice creams vs the cake.  In other words: if Dem-X gets 2.2 million votes, and Dem-Y gets 2.1 million votes, and McCain is getting 2.5 million votes (as a made up example), then either Dem candidate is in pretty good shape, no matter if it is Dem-X or Dem-Y

in CA, IL, WA, NJ, PA, OR, MI, MN, WI, NM, IA, CO, VA, MT.

Clinton outperforming Obama in NY (safely blue anyway), AZ, FL.

But that completely ignores the fact that Obama was trailing in both states by significant margins just a couple of weeks ago.

Obama has taken a 17-18% gap in Ohio and turned it into a 5% gap.  He has taken an 10+% gap in Texas and turned it into a 2-3% lead.

Why on earth does he need to win both now to be a viable general election candidate?  If he wins Texas, he will have won the 2nd (, 5th (Illinois) and 10th (Georgia) largest states.  The chances will be quite good that he will then win Pennsylvania (#6), where the most recent polling suggests a massive Obama surge.  We have no idea what would have happened in Florida and Michigan if they had been fully contested, so lets not include them in the mix.  He'll then win North Carolina (#11) and has already won Virginia (#12).

Perhaps Clinton supporters (and I'm not labeling BTD one) ought to be asking whether or not the fact that Obama beats Clinton in almost every head-to-head poll with McCain, national and in most states, the fact that Clinton has much higher negatives, and that Clinton has lost the last 11 contests might say something about her GE viability?

How long will Obama supporters try to play the name rcognition game? Do you think he'll be caught up to her by the end if his first term? It's silly to think that Obama only has name recognition in states where he's campaigned.

I was the one who started this part of the thread, and I was the one who introduced the phrase "name recognition".

I made a mistake and I apologize.  That's not what I meant.

As I said further in the thread, I wasn't trying to argue that many people haven't heard of his name, but that many people had no idea what he stood for.  Many people think he's just some AA liberal, and don't know his position on any issues.

I think you, yourself, noted this in the rest of your first paragraph:

I suspect one reason his margins improve is because voters don't pay much attention to who they'll vote for until close to the election.

Exactly.  We agree.  That's my point.  Just like you, I believe that many "voters don't pay much attention to who they'll vote for until close to the election.".

And my further point is that, therefore, voters in states that haven't had a primary yet haven't paid enough attention yet.

Among many factors, it takes money and time to overcome that.  And that's what he's been doing in the states that have had primaries.

With money and time, it seems that Obama is beginning to overcome that.  But, the work is not done.  He still needs more money and more time.

But, if he is the nominee, he will get plenty more of each.

So it is nonsense to think that if Obama does not sweep Hillary in every state he is somehow a weak candidate.

If I were a democrat, I'd be worried about a candidate who came into the nominating process as a clear front-runner, ahead in the polls everywhere by double digits, but who spectacularly failed to close the deal, and ended up on an 11-event losing streak, in which she failed to even once make the contest close.  I'd be worried about a candidate who blew through $100 million dollars while running up to this collapse.  I'd be worried about a candidate who is reduced to the spin that if she hasn't been decisively defeated everywhere the party should go with her.

In a nutshell, one question asked of Hillary and Obama supporters was who would you vote for if your first choice was NOT the nominee.

If I recall correctly, a significantly higher number of Hillary supporters were likely to cross over and vote for McCain than Obama supporters were.  

I don't know how that trues up with the head-to-head numbers, though.