I think the one big thing people need to consider, even though it's probably unfair to Hillary Clinton in some measure, is that there are a lot of potential swing voters who simply will not consider voting for her. I say it's unfair, since a lot of that has to do with the smears and witch hunts launched by the Republicans while Bill Clinton was in office, but it's also becoming quite clear that there is a significant segment of voters for whom those impressions are still there.

Bottom line: Obama has a much better chance of beating McCain.

it should be noted that the state polls were conducted at a time when Obama's support was spiking following a series of eight straight primary and caucus victories.

And then it says, even more importantly.:

In Missouri, both Clinton and Obama are essentially even with McCain.

This is important because Missouri, apparently, voted for the winning presidential candidate even before there was a a United States of America.

If electability is important to you, by all means look at these polls, but understand them for what they are: a snapshot in time that is of limited predictive value nine months from now. Go take a look at polls nine months ago.

here:

Meanwhile, SUSA has polled general election match-ups in Wisconsin.

SUSA  2/15-17. 537 registered voters. MoE 4.3%

Hillary Clinton 42%
John McCain 49%

Barack Obama 52%
John McCain 42%

That's right, Obama's up 10 points over McCain in Wisconsin, while Clinton's down 7 points.  That's a 17-point difference, and this pattern is demonstrating itself in state after state.  Huge electability argument for Obama here...

A new poll in Texas by CNN has Clinton with a two point lead, 50% to 48% for Obama.  

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...

...needless to say, it's great news for Obama!  See this Daily Kos diary for more.

Rasmussen just came out with results in MN:

McCain 47 -- Clinton 42
Obama  53 -- McCain  38

I don't think electability arguments are necessarily the best way to make our case for Obama, but at some point you have to wonder why all this evidence points in a certain direction.

We've now seen that Obama is vastly outperforming Clinton in the "swingy" blue states -- Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Even in a solid blue state like Washington, Clinton appears to be in a dogfight with McCain, while Obama would win comfortably.

Furthermore, in current 'red' states Colorado and Nevada, polls show gigantic swings -- Obama would win both comfortably (see Feb. 14 polling for Nevada from Rasmussen, and Feb. 13 polling for Colorado from Rasmussen), while Clinton would lose each state.

Meanwhile, polling is showing close races for both in true swing states of Ohio and Missouri, and big losses by both in Florida.

So, Obama is vastly overperforming Clinton in the blue swing states and even some bluer states, has the ability to turn red states like NV, CO, and VA blue, and is showing just as much strength in the bellwether swing states of OH and MO as Clinton.

What's the argument, again?

...according to SurveUSA:

52% McCain
41% Clinton
+11 McCain over Clinton

41% McCain
51% Obama
+10 Obama over McCain

That's a 21-point advantage for Obama over Clinton in Iowa, and that's huge.