First, the update: Looks like a poster at MyDD had thoughts similar to mine, and he dug up more numbers. Bottom line: Obama is a sure loser in most purple states, while Hillary stands a better chance. Moreover, if Obama wins the nomination, McCain will be strong enough in New York and California to force the expenditure of cash, time and energy in those formerly-solid Dem strongholds.

Now for the original post: I voted for Obama in the California primary based on his perceived electability. Although I still do not believe that Hillary is likely to win in the general, Obama's chances now strike me as being even worse.

Even if Florida runs fair elections -- don't scoff; crucial improvements have been implemented -- Obama would probably lose to McCain in that state. To put the matter bluntly, he has little appeal to Jews and to older voters. McCain will surely emphasize the Wright/NOI connection, which some of you may prefer to pretend is imaginary, even though it isn't.

Here are the Florida numbers, per Rasmussen: McCain 53 - Obama 38; McCain 44 - Clinton 45.

Obama's insistence on shutting out Florida's primary voters -- no revote, no convention seating -- will be remembered.

If Obama cedes Florida, can he make up the loss in other purple states?

Obama has yet to demonstrate widespread appeal to Hispanics, while McCain has proven popularity in the southwest. That means we should not count on New Mexico. California will remain in the Democratic column, but Obama's support in my home state will be weak enough to enforce greater expenditures here. There's much more purple in CA than most outsiders realize.

Ohio prefers Hillary Clinton, who has greater working class appeal. Rasmussen says that McCain leads Barack Obama 47% to 40%, while McCain leads Hillary Clinton 47% to 42%. Not only does Hillary stand a better chance of winning Ohio, she can better afford to lose the state, since she may well win in Florida. Obama cannot.

I simply do not see how the Democrat can put together a winning electoral map without either Florida or Ohio.

Virginia will go for the heroic veteran. Neither Clinton nor Obama can beat McCain in Michigan. The most recent polls give Pennsylvania to the Democrat.

(Incidentally, another minor flap may open up in PA. A key Obama organizer -- a typical prog conspira-crank, by all appearances -- has called McCain the "Third Reich's candidate.")

It is instructive to compare the argument between Sean Wilentz and Brad De Long in Salon. Wilentz may be a Clinton partisan, but he bases his argument on hard electoral math:

In 2004, Democrats lost most of the states where Obama's delegates come from now. The Democrats are likely to lose most of those states again in 2008, no matter how much his supporters speak of winning crossover votes. (Idaho and Wyoming, for example, where Obama won caucuses, are not going to vote for either Clinton or Obama come fall.) Of the remaining states that Obama has won, only one is a large state with a considerable number of electoral votes -- his home state of Illinois. Clinton has won the popular vote in all of the other large states -- and has done so in primaries, not caucus decisions. The arithmetic here is simple: Because of the flawed system, the delegates from the states that Obama has won, many of which vote strongly Republican, represent far fewer Democratic voters than those from the states Clinton won.

In other words, Obama's owes his delegate lead to the red states. But his popularity in those areas won't mean squat in the general.

DeLong dances well, but he refuses to address this argument. Instead, he falls back on the Messianic shibboleth:

Barack Obama is a charismatic, historic figure.

There's no point in talking to an Obama supporter about his candidate. It's like asking Tom Cruise about Elron.

The unspoken factor in all of this is the one that I keep harping on: Obama's online supporters have a bad case of what this blogger calls "progressive derangement syndrome." They are so caught up in their private world that they do not know how repulsive they sound.

...last night on dKos, Senator Clinton was referred to as "a vile succubus," "a vile excuse for a human being," "a complete scumbag," "that monster," and multiple versions of liar, some with gender-specific modifiers - and that was just one thread.

But in the some of the high emotion of this long campaign, I have noticed on the part of Obama supporters a disturbing notion that Hillary Clinton and her followers shouldn't be considered real Democrats...

Moulitsas made that very statement: "It’s bizarre, but I don’t really consider [Hillary Clinton] a Dem any more." (Someone else actually wrote those words, but the Greek Tycoon obviously approves the message.)

BTD (an Obama supporter, I might note) adds an insightful kicker: "In a way, there is a certain clarity that is being reached in the Obama blogworld - they want the Clinton part of the Democratic Party and the Clinton legacy demolished and destroyed. I personally think that leads to political suicide for the Democratic Party. But the Unity Schtick does not appear to extend to fellow Dems from the Obama blogs. Their hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton has become more important to them than Obama's chances of winning in November.

"Anglachel has an eloquent post on the Democratic purge that some in the progressive blogosphere would like to see: "What the hell is up with my party? Disenfranchising voters to throw an election? Declaring vast swaths of party loyalists to be racists? Deriding party stalwarts as "Republican-lite"? Dismissing the economic successes of a previous Democratic administration? Just why are the self-described progressives so frantic to remove Bill Clinton from the company of Democratic presidents?"

You may think that I've made a rough segue from the "Is Obama electable?" to my usual bashing of the progblogs. But the two topics are interrelated.

Outside of the progland, Hillary Clinton's opponents tend to deride her as too far to the left. She is so perceived by many swing voters. How will they take to a man whose base supporters are themselves so thoroughly enmeshed in hallucination that they consider the Clintons to be conservative?

The outlandish statements made by the Obamabots may play a role in Republican propaganda. As all fans of Forbidden Planet will recall, you can't unleash the Monster of the Id without damaging your home base.

The great irony here is that Hillary's voting record is not pro-corporate -- while Obama represents a Libertarian mole within the Democratic party. It is telling that the Obamabots accept the Savior's call for unity with the Republicans while excoriating the Clintons.

In the unlikely event of an Obama victory, Goolsbeenomics will not return this nation to fiscal sanity -- and if recession ripens into Depression under a Libertarian-posing-as-progressive president, the Democratic party might suffer a mortal blow.

Added note: I can't help quoting The Democratic Daily:

Who died and left Markos and the pro-Obama croud in the blogosphere to determine who is or isn’t a Democrat? I support Hillary Clinton in this election. Unlike Markos, who was once a registered Republican, I’m a life long (registered) Democrat — a died in the wool Massachusetts liberal. I’ve never, I repeat never, crossed party lines to vote for any Republican and I’ve never been associated with any other political party — but Markos and the pro-Obama croud want to start judging who is a Democrat? My response — Get over yourself!