Mar 08 2008
The State Battle Nobody Is Talking About
We keep hearing about delegates, super delegates and even the popular vote when it comes to the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, but what about states? Barack Obama has already won that war, which is why we probably aren’t hearing about it.
Now, BHO has won 27 contests to Hillary Clinton’s 14. One of his wins was the Virgin Islands, so let’s change the score to BHO 26, HRC 14. The Clinton camp keeps on saying that there are 12 contests left, but only 10 of those are states (Guam and Puerto Rico aren’t states) and Obama looks like he is going to carry Wisconsin. Make the score BHO 27, HRC 14 once again, with only nine states remaining. Hillary could win all nine and still wouldn’t catch Barack Obama.
This needs to be talked about. Why? Because while I have no doubt that Obama can win big blue states like New York and California, I just don’t see Hillary competing in red and purple states as well as Obama can, with Ohio probably being the exception because of its unique and unfavorable demographics. She’s also basically said that many states don’t matter, something that could come back to haunt the Democratic party in the general election should she capture the nomination.
My point is, the ability to win as many states as possible definitely matters. Shouldn’t it matter now just as much as elected delegates and votes (I still expect Obama to win both, by the way)?
| 
| 
| 
Loading ...
Posts
I completely agree, but I think you meant Wyoming instead of Wisconsin. It looks like he’s going to win Wyoming.
What I can’t get over is her argument that she carried the states Democrats have to win in November. Do people seriously think Obama would lose NY and California to McCain!?! Pretty much any democrat would win them against a republican.
I have a comment. I know they are putting an immense amount of attention on the Pennsylvania contest because it has so many delegates, but I wonder why they haven’t talked much about North Carolina. I know it has less delegates, but it’s ‘voter-eligible population’ hovers around 7 million, while PA’s is 9 million (and obviously turnout will only be a small fraction of this #, my point is just that they both have a large pool of voters). The reason I bring this up is because Hillary has no chance of catching him with pledged delegates, and I know one of the things she is hoping can sway supers is if she surpasses him in the popular vote. I think she’s about 300,000 behind INCLUDING Florida. But I think N Carolina would act as somewhat of a buffer to her popular vote totals in PA. What do you think?
I am grateful for your post. I was sitting here about to post on the spin going on with these big states, and thought I would try to see if anyone else has seen through the haze. I am so frustrated that people buy into this. Are 1.2 million people in Ohio that voted for Clinton going to actually vote for McCain. What percentage would actually do this? The percentage seems to be high from the Clinton camp. How does a primary in March equate to a general election in November (9 months away). If she is not stopped, either she loses in November, or Obama quite possibly might. I hope Pennsylvania is close, and the superdelegates figure this out soon.
Excellent points, fellas. I just don’t think she can catch him in anything, really. Not delegates, states or votes. Unless she swings the supers on this big state theory, I still think this is over.
Still, the Al Gores, Nancy Pelosis, etc…know that switching to HRC in that manner would alienate millions of black and young voters, a vital part of the new Democratic majority they are trying to build and groups more active now than ever before. You really can’t say the same about Hillary’s voters. Most of her voters are traditional Dems or we’re-scared-of-Bush voters. They’ll vote for us in the fall.
A few of her most die-hard supporters won’t probably, but they’re delusional in the first place if they support her.
Dick Morris agrees with me:
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/its-over-2008-03-06.html
Yeah, I read the Dick Morris article and was grinning from ear to ear for most of today.
I also agree with your argument over a new democratic party, and was actually tempted to bring it up in my earlier post. If Obama should be credited with anything at all, it’s that he has gotten a generation involved in politics - myself included. I’m only 20 and all stereotypes indicate that I should be apathetic to the entire process, but I’m more involved now than anyone any my family ever has. I’ve volunteered, written articles for the local paper and my 35,000 student university, attended rallies, donated over $200 (on a full time student and part time employee budget!), and both voted and caucused on March 4th in TX. And the wonderful thing is that I’m not unique. There are hundreds of thousands of young people now on the political scene, and voting in Hillary over Obama by superdelegates would absolutely alienate and, frankly, piss off a young generation. I would be turned off to the process along with many others. It’s imperatively important that the democrats not ruin this new, powerful coalition of the future, and I think that Obama has a strong argument simply based on this one fact and should utilize it when trying to sway supers. Does anyone think the republicans have a new base of support on which to rest their chances in the future? Absolutely not. Obama has built a coalition for the future and will help (no, HAS helped) strengthen the democratic party.