November 5, 2008—Voters yesterday delivered a stunning defeat to Barack Obama, as he won the presidential election in a landslide much smaller than some anonymous experts predicted. In what is surely a bad sign for the Democratic Party and its new President-Elect, Obama won the electoral votes of a bare majority of the fifty states, losing several of the states his campaign had targeted, including the electoral-vote rich states of Georgia and North Carolina, and barely carrying other crucial "swing states" such as Florida and Ohio. Obama earned only 53% of the popular vote. Even more troubling for the Democrat: exit polls indicate that Obama lost to rival John McCain among white Americans.

The 50-State Strategy: a plan to build a truly nationwide Democratic Party structure capable of competing--and winning--everywhere in the U.S., at every level. Take this effort to its logical conclusion, and try to envision a scenario in which the Democrats win the presidential election with every state, every electoral vote. This has never been accomplished in the two-party era of American politics, although candidates have come close to perfection several times. Is it a goal worth working for? Hell yes--imagine, for example, the "coattail effect" this would have on congressional, state, and local races.

If Kos is right that states like Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, and Montana might be in play this year, why stop there? Could this be the year we run the table? The short answer is "not bloody likely." The longer answer is "not bloody likely, but technically within the realm of possibility." Basically, everything would have to go right for the Democrats between now and November 4. Follow me below the jump for a description of how such a scenario might play out.

Crossposted at MyDD

To all supporters of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama:

Here's your chance to swing a real undecided voter.

I'm a committed progressive Democrat. I'm a big fan of both of our candidates and am having a hard time choosing one. And I don't think I'm alone. I've heard both candidates' stances on important issues and am left largely agreeing with both, and believing that their differences are fairly minor. I've heard plenty of negative talking points and attacks on both, and I've dismissed most of them and have come to terms with the others. So please don't go negative in the comments below--I think both of our candidates are good choices and nothing you might say is likely to convince me otherwise. That's not to say that each doesn't have strengths and weaknesses: I like Hillary's debating skills and Barack's ability to inspire. Clinton has more experience, Obama seems more genuine.

Bottom line: both would be presidents that I could get behind. I'd like to hear your reasoning on who would be more effective, more successful. Who has what it takes to be a great president, rather than one who is just "good enough."

Here's how you can help me make up my mind:

John Edwards gave a great debate performance last night, but what has people talking today is his post-debate meeting with Hillary Clinton. We don't know what significance (if any) this talk may have.

Edwards has been great in this campaign, with his advocacy on behalf of the underprivileged forcing other candidates to retool their own messages, but the race is increasingly looking like a two-person contest. Assuming he can't turn things around in South Carolina (and I'm not trying to bury him prematurely), I think many of us are curious which way his supporters will be looking should he decide to exit the race.

That brings us to the poll:

Note: To fully appreciate this diary, it is recommended that you read it while listening to Weezer’s "Island in the Sun." "Margaritaville" is acceptable in a pinch.

"They’re living in the tropics... They’ve got everything they could possibly want." – Vice President Cheney, on detainees at Guantanamo Bay

After reading this quote from Dick Cheney, I have gained a whole new perspective on American foreign policy.

Obviously, my title is silly hyperbole. Like any good Democrat, I intend to support our party's choice next November-and not just because of the (D) after his or her name. Any of our announced candidates (at least, all of the serious ones) would be a big improvement over the current administration, or over the Republican wannabes. For that reason, I would vote for the Democrat even if our nominee is someone I might not fully endorse or approve of.

Let's face it--we're not choosing a party chairman in November 2008, or a Marketer in Chief, or a cookie salesperson. We're voting for the next president of our country.