These areas don't see a lot of campaigning and are fairly sparsely populated.  It should only take a few stops to get Obama's message out in most of these locations.

Every one of thes low-EV states that Obama picks off with a few days of campaigning is a step towards making Florida irrelevant.

What Latino problem?

"A new Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May shows Obama winning 62% of Latino registered voters nationwide, compared with just 29% for McCain."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la- na-latinos6-2008jun06,0,5793717.story

Are you are on the Clinton payroll? This is so bogus. Richardson will camapign his heart out in those western states for Obama. And -- unlike Clinton -- he actually speaks Spanish.

Answer: Yes.

Oh, I'm sure he doesn't need Hill.  I doubt hse will be on the trail much.

Were we're down by 6% with 5 months until the voting?  Sheesh.

And another thing, I'm reading that Obama is potentially going to raise $100 million in JUNE.  So what if we press ahead in a few states we might not actually win, take the fight to McCain!  Make him defend and use resources there so he doesn't have as much in the tank elsewhere.

Not a good post Todd.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 608/Another_nonendorsement.html

An Oklahoma Democrat, Dan Boren, won't endorse Obama, AP reports.

In an interview, he had this gift for McCain:

   Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, "unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion."

   Boren, a self-described centrist, is seeking a third term this year in a mostly rural district that stretches across eastern Oklahoma.

   "We're much more conservative," Boren said of district. "I've got to reflect my district. No one means more to me than the people who elected me. I have to listen them." He called Obama "the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate."

As was pointed out earlier, Obama doesn't have a Latino problem.  They're supporting him two-to-one over McCain.

As for polling in Nevada, you can't put all your emphasis on a single poll.  There are four polls listed on fivethirtyeight for Nevada, and in the three of them that you don't cite, Obama polled better than Clinton in the state by an average of 7%.  Somehow, between 4/21 and 5/20, Rasmussen measured a 16-point swing in Clinton's favor versus McCain--that smells suspicious and calls the 5/20 poll into question.

In any case, with people like Clinton, Richardson, and Dodd campaigning vigorously for Obama in Nevada, and heavy voter registration and GOTV drives directed towards Latino voters, we will have the state sewn up by November.

You're drawing conclusions about polling in a state which has only had two polls taken of it in the past two months, both of them from Rasmussen.  While we cannot judge how accurate Rasmussen is as a pollster for this season yet, in the majority of states they've been showing better numbers for McCain than SurveyUSA or the more minor pollsters.  

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama is doing worse in Nevada than New Mexico, or even Colorado.  But there's no reason to assume yet that Nevada won't be a swing state yet again.  

Todd, the least you could do before you post, is do some research and check ALL the polls, least anyone think you are not supporting the democratic nominee.

overblown? i personally don't think so.

party registration doesn't really tell the full story in Nevada (unless you want to parse past results in conjunction with party i.d.). It may take some time before Democratic voters whom actually make it to the polls outnumber Republican ones.

but I regress. Nevada is one of few states in which Obama polls worse then the 2004 outcome (although within the margin of error). It's also curious that Clinton's name gets mentioned as the last few polls had her performing worse than Obama in almost every single western state.

I am hoping that we will be rigorously honest in our analysis of data this year with the specific intent of maximizing our effectiveness across the electoral map.  This certainly will permit us to exult where we are succeeding, but it also will caution us to redouble our efforts where more work may bear fruit.

McCain is from the Mountain West.  There's nothing inconsistent with saying that Obama is stronger in that region than most democrats, but that he will still have trouble in some states like Nevada precisely because John McCain is stronger in the region than just about any Republican.  But I still think Obama wins Nevada too before this thing is all said and done.  

it's worth noticing that Todd's posts which deal with polls and numbers tend to be his worst. His blogging improved vastly after striking out badly with his predictions on Super Tuesday and subsequent contests and watching him become weary of predictions (and playing the expectations game).

approaching the topic with a broad brush tells a different story from what this diary is tryign to tell us. The west is a place that Obama does relatively well in.

perhaps Todd, you should have just focussed the attention on Nevada to get your point across.

Anyone who thought he might carry Utah, Wyoming or Idaho is clearly out to lunch. I think Colorado and New Mexico are more likely than not ours, I feel better about Nevada than you do and I would not be shocked if Montana comes into play. Keep in mind that McCain has not yet broken 50% in ARIZONA against Obama.

In the primaries and Spring of 1992, Bill Clinton had a "woman problem" (no, not THAT kind). But on election days he walloped Bush 1.0 among women. I think it is possible that one can read too much into results among Democratic Parimary voters into what happens later on. Does anyone really think that non-Democratic white working class men were going to flock to Hillary or that women in San Meteo County, CA will vote in droves for McCain?

"Is Obama's Appeal In The West Overblown?"

No.  This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions(TM).

McCain's Arizona Problem

McCain's legendary temper and maverick streak have irked members of the GOP on virtually all sides. No one knows that better than those who should be his biggest backers, the top leadership of the Arizona Republican Party. Instead, they are some of his most ardent foes, and McCain's actions earlier this year have done little to assuage their anger.

I think it was this morning when Chuck Todd said there was a key difference between Colorado and New Mexico vs Arizona and Nevada.  In the simplest terms he said people go to NV and AZ for low taxes, people go to CO and NM for the outdoor life and art culture.  So while all may be trending blue, NV and AZ will take longer to switch because they are more conservative transplants.

I don't think Obama has much of a Latino problem, (after canvassing my family about 100 people living in different places along the texas mexico border) I think it's a generational racist resentment. But that applies to a subset (i.e. idealists from the 1970s).

Latinos will always have some links to republicans on social issues (and certain economic rhetoric from  the GOP feeds into some ideals as well) but not a big deal.

Anyhow, Nevada is to Dems what New Jersey is to the GOP, a great white whale that is tantalizing but ultimately does not deliver.

I have trouble believing polls taken before Hillary endorsed Barack show anything but how contentious the race was but also how much it was in the news.  I didn't get too high when the MyDD electoral map steadily climbed to 311 EVs for Obama, and I'm not going to get too low off one poll.  

Nevada, especially the Vegas area has high population turnover, which also (I think) means lower than normal voter registration numbers.

It's the kind of place where his voter registration project will pay huge dividends.

I naively thought that Hillary's withdrawal would get Obama supporters past their "Obama can do no wrong" mindset. Apparently not, going by this thread.

Barack Obama does not connect well with some large, competitive demographics. Overall those demographics can be described as working class less African Americans. John McCain does connect well with those demographics, he can pull off faux-populism better and he has a record supporting some issues important to them.

It is hard to imagine that a massively out-spent Republican tied to the least popular president in history could beat a Democrat, but if it does happen it will be because Obama was not able to correct the problems he has with working class people.

And it currently has a Dem governor, Attorney General,  and evenly divided legislature.

It's a myth that AZ is a unwinnable GOP state, and writing it off is one of the dumbest things Democrats have done in the past two elections.

And this year it could be won with Gov. Janet Napolitano on Obama's ticket.

he's down 6 points, pre-Clinton-dropout. you characterize that as "this badly"? Weird, no? Especially given that it's within the margin of error. And FYI, not everything is measured by how much better or worse Clinton would do. She dropped out, you may have heard.

But my goodness, McCain had a 1-point uptick between April and May. Write the west off!

Point of Information

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/0 6/10/governors_divorce_worries_nevada_re publicans.html

Not very complicated, for this westerner.

Both Obama and McCain run well in the west.

Theirs is a fight.

Hillary was terrible in the west. Cliche of the pushy, rude, bossy, easterner

Obama's poor showing in the Rasmussen poll for Nevada last month was mostly a result of Clinton's supporters saying they wouldn't turn out for him (he got 65% of Dems, which, btw, is the lowest number I've seen in any poll like this).  As in much of the country, a lot of Obama's strength in November will depend upon whether he gets these voters back (and he doesn't have to win them all, if he got 50% he'd be neck and neck with McCain).  What we seem to be finding out about Latinos is that they preferred her but like him just fine.  We'll see how the rest plays out.

Bad diary. Just focuses on Nevada.

Totally ignores Colorado (where Obama beats McCain and Hillary doesn't).

New Mexico is also leaning Obama.

That's 14 EVs. Add in Iowa's 7, and that's 21.

Translation: Obama can lose Ohio and still win.

There's also the all-important "the governor's a lying scumbag adulterer who won't be able to show his face in public and campaign for the ticket" effect.  This is alternatively known as the Robert Taft (Ohio Gov. caught up in Coingate) effect. Ohio went completely blue in 2006 because the Governor's troubles impacted every Republican.  So too in Nevada, perhaps.  Especially since John McCain loves him some nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, which I'm sure Obama will spell out in ads.

I really am not sure what this jump to a conclusion was about since usually Todd's posts are more well thought out but anyway...

I live in Vegas and based on what ive seen and heard from the people, NV will be close. I think out of the 3, it's the least likely pick up but its also not that hard to flip it. I'm not even going to talk about the poll that was chosen.

McCain wants a ban on college betting. College betting brings in A LOT of money to Vegas/Nevada and therefore keeps people employed. Vegas is kinda known for gambling, not sure if this was known or not ;)  Anyway, Obama just needs to start running ads talking about how McCain wants to ban college sports betting (which most people don't know about) and even Republicans will be voting against him for that sole purpose. Count on it. We love us some gaming and tourists.

Richardson can influence like 20 voters in NM.  Beyond that?  Not many people voted for him- EVEN LATINOS.  Hillary Clinton won that vote - overwhelmingly.  Richardson is basically irrelevant.  Sorry- speaking the truth.

Todd, I think you're still drinking the Clinton kool-aid here. First of all, one Rasmussen poll 6 months before the election, taken during a period when there was no advertising and very little media coverage of the race, hardly suggests a likely outcome in Nov. Second, and much more important, McCain's message profile is all wrong in NV -- the war has become much more unpopular hear than it was in 04 or 06; the home foreclosure crisis has hit here harder than any other state; and he's still in favor of Yucca mountain.

But most importantly, on the ground, the Dem party has never been as well organized and the GOP has never been in greater disarray. Not only  is there the huge shift in partisan registration advantage towards the Democrats -- which continues with each SoS report and, which has been most marked in heavily democratic voting areas, suggesting these new registrants are likely to turn out and vote D.)

Moreover, the state republican party is bankrupt and has few prospects to replenish its coffers. Plus the Governor's become a figure of ridicule (in contrast to 00 and 04, when Guinn campaigned effectivley for Bush) and the huge economic/ budget crisis in the state has only sharpened anti-incumbent attitudes.

Lastly the state democratic party has a solid field organization led by strong candidates -- and no primaries -- in almost every downballot race, perhaps most importantly Dina Titus running in the key swing CD of the state.

The problem with Todd's post is: Ya gotta know the territory.

The Intermountain West- Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and parts of Washington, Oregon, California, and Colorado- is the most rapidly growing area in the country, and things are  changing very fast out here.

I'm a lifelong Democrat and a native Idahoan. Idaho is the most Republican state in the nation by all the common demographics and measures, but don't let those things fool you. The truth is Idaho is a concentrated microcosm of all the elements that are making this race so unpredicatable. Hillary wasn't worried about Super Tuesday's results until she heard about the Idaho caucus returns. Obama pulled in thousands of brand-new caucus voters all over the state, and carried it 81% to her 15%.

The reasons are simple: Obama didn't take Idaho for granted- when he was asked, he showed up and did a rally in Boise. He hung around afterward and listened to Idahoans. He gave all us Democrats, and all the cynical uncommitted kids, real hope and inspiration. And we repaid him with more convention delegates than New Jersey.

All this spring, my lifelong Republican friends have questioned me about him, and my thoughts on his chances... just spend an hour on the phone with one of them today. These people are all going to vote for him when the time comes, because for us, breaking the bonds of party, religion and community ways is a very serious thing. For them, jumping the Republican traces and breaking their harness is no easy thing to be taken lightly.

I'm not a pundit or even all that political. I would be considered a conservative Democrat elsewhere. I'm just a guy who can put 2 and 2 together, and I know folks all over the West.

Is Obama going to win the West. Yes. Hell, yes. I think he's going to win here, and I'm so confident I'll bet Todd a stawberry milkshake on it. When a bunch of old Mormon spud farmers, and a couple of cowboys, tell me they're thinking about voting for Obama, that's about as serious a sign as it gets.