If I've learned one thing about the Obama campaign in the last 8 months or so, it's that they have mastered the art of information control.

Simply, they're too smart to toss everyone a giant clue about who Obama's VP is going to be by naming a convention night after said prospective VP. Obama's team has a certain talent for political theater, be it the plans for the Invesco speech or the timing of Edwards endorsement to couterract the WV primary. When they reveal Obama's VP, it'll be to much more fanfare and with much more theater than simply doing something as obvious as the convention night theme name.

This is just another part of the "Hey look over there!" media campaign that the Obama campaign has been pulling on McCain and the media. He's got them running around in circles chasing their tails over all of these prospective VPs, who then summarily fade off the radar again when a new flavor of the week comes up. By keeping this speculation up for as long as possible with as many different choices, he protects from McCain counterprogramming his choice, and also allows for much more discussion and media uproar when he picks a complete dark horse.

Either that, or Obama and the DNC are running a remarkably shoddy vice presidential search, but nothing from either the DNC nor Obama's previous operations would suggest this.

I see two possible scenarios as to the surge in chatter about Tim Kaine as VP lately.


1)Tim Kaine actually is in serious talks, or has already been asked and accepted, the vice presidential slot. If this is true, he's a buffoon for parading himself around in the media, or even talking about it. This would be bad, in my opinion. It would show he has little tact for the sensitive art of information control.

or (tin foil hats on, people)

2)Tim Kaine is actually just a "hey look over here!" distraction. He, on behalf and at the request of the Obama team, makes a lot of noise about his vice presidential chances/aspirations/talks etc. to distract from whoever Obama really is going to choose. This would be done in an effort to make McCain's campaign buy it, and counterselect a candidate that would neutralize Tim Kaine, who Obama could then one up with his own real selection. It could also draw a lot of attention to his schedule as it matches up to Obama's, thereby taking attention off of the actual prospective picks schedule and allowing a meeting or talks to go on somewhat more unnoticed.

I don't even really know which one I see as more likely. But it was just something that occured to me.

By now, most of us have seen these:






Encouraging, ain't it? But when you look at the actual polls, they give an even further story.

In the Obama matchup:



Look at that. Some things I noticed:

-SUSA gave McCain NJ on the Obama map, even though they tie there. Seems odd considering NJ has been consistently blue for 20 years now.
-TEXAS is competitive, according to the polls. Yeah, I have no idea how that happened. McCain takes it by 1%, making it firmly up in the air.
-McCain also wins Florida and Nebraska by 2 and 3 percent, respectively, making them also effectively swing states.
-Virginia is a tie they gave to Obama. I'm not so sure about that, but VA turning blue is my big hope for this year.

Conclusion: This map, if it holds to November, could contain a much larger Obama victory than it appears to.


Now to Clinton:


-Michigan they gave to McCain, even though the vote is tied. I don't know, I have a hard time imagining Hillary losing MI.
-New Mexico, which is firmly in Obama's column, is tied for Hillary, but they gave it to her anyway.
-Washington state is given to McCain on the map, but is within 2 points in the polls. Firmly undecided.
-For all of Hillary's supposed strength in PA, she only wins by 1%. Tossup for sure.
-Tennessee! Wow. Hillary is tied with Big Mac there. That'd be a nice flip if we can swing it.

Conclusion: Hillary's map makes a few more assumptions for both her and McCain. I'd say that matchup is still a tossup, with Hillary favored, in my book at least.


Overall? First, I think SUSA is being a little irresponsible handing out EVs for states well within the margin of error. A third category would be nice. But secondly, it shows that this election, regardless of who we nominate, could end up very close. This makes it absolutely essential that we all cool down a bit, and consider what could happen with a President McCain. Then we go out and work our asses off for whatever Dem wins!

Based on all the state polls I can find, here are my predictions for 2008 GE with both candidates.

Obama


As you can see, I left several states up for grabs. Regardless, in this scenario, Obama wins with at least 270 electoral votes.

Clinton


There's the current projection for Sen. Clinton. As you can see, McCain takes a lot more swing states based on current polls. In this scenario, Clinton must win all tossup states to win.

Disclaimer: These are based on a combination of conventional wisdom (a dem IS gonna win CA, no matter who it is), current state matchups, and a little bit of my opinion here and there. I've tried to be as non-biased as possible. These are just a current snapshot of what the general election might look like if it happened to day, and I don't claim for them to be anything more than that.

That said, discuss.


*edit* Thank you for all the response. I'm considering doing this once a week or once every two weeks until the GE, as new polls come in and new trends emerge. Would anyone be interested in seeing that?

Libertarianism an inherently selfish and irresonsible set of principles. While socially it may be appealing to some (or most) of we liberals, economically, it could not be farther from desireable. They basically eschew any responsiblities people might have to others in favor of "letting the free market handle it". Well in the free market, people act in their own self interest, and if you're one of the have nots, the haves couldn't give two shits about how you live. Dangerous and irresponsible...

I'm 17, soon to be 18. The idea that some of you here, on one of the most liberal message boards on the internet, want to send me and my peers off in to George Bush's war to make a point is absurd. Sure, it'll get people protesting. But what about in the meantime, while my friends and I are getting shot at in Baghdad? As I said in another thread on this topic, if there is a draft, the first time a single draftee dies, all of you who supported it to try and "force people to protest" have blood on your hands. I'll be damned if i'm going off to fight in a war so that ANYONE can prove a point, be it GWB or Charlie Rangel.

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp...


I've been looking over this for a while now, and I've come to some conclusions. Hillary is way strong in the Northeast and California. But in the south and west, she gets demolished by Edwards and Obama, respectively.

We can't win without southern or western states in the next election. and i think hillary really turns off a large number of old school southern and western democrats because they think she's too liberal (far from it, IMHO). If Obama and edwards can win the west and the south easier, they'll naturally do well in traditional democratic strongholds like the northeast and california.

I just don't think we can take the chance of nominating someone the media can paint as a northeast liberal elitist, much like they did to John Kerry.