I did some analysis this week on the issue of the popular vote breakdown between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in all kinds of states, to see if there is any validity to Hillary Clinton's arguments concerning the relative merits of Hillary v. Obama in the states that Democrats need to win in November.  

I have divided the states up into two initial categories:  Blue States (states that went for Kerry in 2004) and Red States (states that went for Bush in 2004).  I then selected a set of Purple States, which were battleground states in 2004:  Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Ohio, Missouri, and New Mexico.

For all these states, I used the popular vote count available on Real Clear Politics.  Note - there HAVE BEEN NO RELEASED POPULAR VOTE COUNTS from Nevada, Iowa, Maine and Washington State, all of which are purple states.  Given what we know about turnout, it's likely that these three states would probably net Obama additional popular vote (although I'm unclear on how much).

The results are that Senator Obama has won every category of state, Red, Blue and Purple.  Analysis after the flip.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, [insult removed], Wolfson's slur of Obama "acting like Ken Starr" is every bit as bad and likely worse than Samatha Powers' "monster" comment.

How do I know that?  James Carville told me.  More after the flip.

I, as a strong Obama supporter, also had a strong reaction to Hillary's very negative attacks on Senator Obama that are the subject of numerous diaries, including Delaware Dem's and Georgia10's.  I was upset that she was waiving his mailer and calling down shame upon him for his response to her health care plan.  And I, too, had thoughts of "well, I'm just not going to vote for Hillary in the fall if she is so intent on grabbing power that she'll viciously attack my preferred candidate, who is probably the only politician that has inspired me in my lifetime.

But then, like a flash, I realized what her attack was, and I wasn't so angry any more.  I won't be saying that I won't vote for Hillary in the fall.  Because Hillary won't be the nominee in the fall.  This is just her death rattle.  

(I would say that it is her last throes, but Dick Cheney has made that a singularly unpredictive phrase).

More on the flip.

I live in the precinct adjacent to teacherken in Arlington, VA.  I got up very early (for me) this morning to get voting out of the way.  In 2006, I got in line to vote at 7:15 a.m. but did not vote until 8:00 a.m. and I was in the 300-350 range of voters.

This morning, I went to vote at 6:50 a.m. (just about 25 minutes earlier).  Turnout on the flip.

Watching Keith Olbermann on Countdown tonight, he made an important slip.  In discussing Hillary's attacks on Obama with Howard Fineman, he conceded that Obama's reference to Reagan as a transformative figure was not a blanket endorsement of Reagan's policies.  Howard Fineman did a good job of defending Obama...but then Keith f'ed up.

I haven't seen a diary on this yet, so I will post on it.

Mike Allen just posted a story on the Time web site giving Rove's spin on the "thumpin'" that the Republicans took in the '06 mid-terms.

And here it is - it's normal to lose 29 seats and lose control of both houses of Congress!

More on the flip.

I've been running tote boards on the two main-column diary entries related to the effort to $100k on the ActBlue netroots page today.

And now, as of 2.52 p.m. EDT, the $100k goal was officially achieved!  Or, as officially as one DKos poster can figure it out.

TGoddard's Political Wire has a fascinating recap of just how Chafee was able to defeat a (at least somewhat) motivated right wing of the Republican Party in the RI-Sen primary yesterday.  The blurb is worth a read in its entirety, and you can read it here.

Here's the juiciest part:

"Behind the curtain, Chafee's campaign . . . searched for independents who voted Democrat in municipal elections but who had once upon a time voted for a Republican for president or governor or senator. . . They looked for non-affiliated voters in Republican neighborhoods. Using microtargeting techniques, they even tried to figure out which committed Democrats might be tempted to vote for Chafee."

"By the end of the summer, Chafee's campaign had identified 42,000 potential supporters. Then the second part of the program kicked in. . . The campaign 'messaged' these voters, often individually. Chafee himself called more than 100 of them who were identified as being capable of swinging the votes of colleagues and friends. "

More after the flip.

The Supreme Court's decision today approving mid-decade redistricting from a constitutional standpoint clears the way for such mid-decade redistricting in Democrat-controlled states.

Previously, Illinois Democrats had refused to do a mid-decade redistricting, citing the fact that they were going to "take the high road" and not redistrict mid-decade.

With the Supreme Court's decision, the high road no longer exists from a constitutional standpoint (rightly or wrongly).  There's only the low road now.

Forgive me if someone has brought up this concept before. I wouldn't be surprised, since it seems to me to be the most direct and easiest to understand way of linking the Republicans and their failed energy policies to high gas prices.

As the New York Times reports today, Dems are eager to exploit anger over gas prices. As well they should - there is no pocketbook issue more directly relevant to about 99.5% of the country than gas prices.

Democrats need a one-sentence slogan on gas prices:

"This is what you get with a Texas oil man in the White House."

I am more of a Daily Kos reader than a diarist, but I did have a thought I wanted to share about the Roberts nomination and a multi-level strategy for the pro-choice position.

I think all the airing of theories here on DKos is a great concept and I've enjoyed it all.  There are a lot of useful theories.

But I think what should be done is this - Democrats should stop worrying about getting A majority and figuring out how to get TO a majority.  

Instead, Democrats should go back to the drawing board and decide what their VISION is and their CORE VALUES are and then start thinking about how to sell that position to the majority.

In other words, Democrats should not be thinking...if we can get take this position on this issue and this position on that issue, we can get to 50.5%.  We should be thinking about what our core values and beliefs are and how we can convince the country that those core values and beliefs are worth putting Democrats in office.

Let's have our vision move the electorate, not have the electorate move our vision.  Otherwise, we'll alway be chasing those last votes, sacrificing more and more to get them.

(I do admit that for a vision, I like the "Party of Responsibility" theme expressed by Saletan at Slate)

Available Here.

Ohio

Kerry 50
Bush 49

FLA

Kerry 50
Bush 49

PA

Kerry 54
Bush 45

WI

Kerry 51
Bush 46

MN

Kerry 58
Bush 40

NV

Bush 50
Kerry 48

NM

Kerry 50
Bush 48

NC

Bush 51
Kerry 49!

CO

Bush 53
Kerry 46

MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!MORE CHARACTERS!

It strikes me that the electoral college is interesting, but fundamentally flawed from a business perspective.  Yes, I mean a business perspective.

Currently, the states garnering the most political advertising are Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.  The TV markets are Philadelphia (Market #4, I believe), Cleveland (mid-20's), Miami (high teens), Cincinnati (high 20's), Tampa (low 20's), Orlando (mid-30's), Columbus (mid-30's), Toledo (small market), Dayton (small market), etc.

More below the fold.