Why DO the big states go for Clinton?

[GOTV]

I'm just wondering.

Are the large states too big for a campaign to cover sufficiently in time and so the advantage stays with the candidate that had the greatest initial name recognition?

Are there other theories?

[SoonerPride]

1. Oklahoma went for Clinton

And Illinois, Virginia and Texas went to Obama.

[book_worm]

2. And Wisconsin went for Obama as did Washington state

[book_worm]

14. And Obama also won Missouri

[rcsl1998]

100. Yes, By 0.1%, But That's More Than * Supposedly Won FL Over Gore nt

[LSK]

175. Colorado, Illinois, Washington, Virginia, Georgia

[annie1]

203. Ill b/c he was the senator of it, that's a no brainer, and GA b/c...

over a 1/3 of the voters are black. and since they break for Bo 9:10 the fact is that's how he wins the southern states.

[onehandle]

Why do I keep seeing people saying that Texas went to Obama?

Did Hillary get fewer votes? Was there a recount?

[yardwork]

11. Obama won more delegates and that's what counts in the primaries.

[goodgd_yall]

38. In the general, it's going to be the popular vote in each state that counts

If Hillary were to win the majority of votes in Texas during the general election (which I don't think will happen; I think McCain will take Texas) she gets all the electoral votes. It's a whole different system than the primary delegate distribution system.

[SoonerPride]

74. But only the electoral college votes count

Really.

Ask Al gore how much the popular vote counts.

[Ravy]

194. The electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote in the state, though.

At least, almost all states. Everyone objective has Texas going to Clinton, and Nevada to Clinton as well.

[global1]

85. There Has Been Record Dem Voter TurnOut In Just About Every State.....

a primary or caucus has been held. Dems are energized. They want to rid this country of *Co and the Repugs.

A primary is a beauty contest between the Dems - to pick one to be the nominee. It's won't make a difference in the GE as whomever the Dem candidate is in either - big state, small state, red state, blue state - the Dem nominee will get their vote. The GE thing will be a Dem/Repug issue. Yes - those Repugs that crossed over and voted for Hillary - will now vote for McCain - but that still won't be enough votes for Repugs to beat the Dems.

The whole argument that Obama can't win the big states means he'd lose them in the GE - is disingenuous.

[yardwork]

93. Exactly! Most people who support Hillary in the primaries will vote for Obama if he's the nominee.

[Texas Hill Country]

191. most, but 25% plus will not.

[Ravy]

195. Actually, the polls have reversed a bit on that if MSNBC this morning is to be believed.

It wasn't really about support.. per se. But it was something like 23% of HC supporters would be as happy if Obama won, and 45% or so of Obama supporters would be as happy if Clinton won. That really surprised me.

[laugle]

197. Don't count on it! It all depends

on how this ends up!

[yardwork]

90. But we're not discussing the general election, where a single Dem is against a single Rep.

Turnout in primaries differs considerably from turnout in the general election.

Right now, the fight is over who will be the nominee. In that respect, Obama won Texas.

[onehandle]

88. Oh great. Gore got more votes. Bush got more delegates.

How nice to see Democrats being undemocratic and thinking in Rovespeak.

[SoonerPride]

97. Just the rules

sorry

[Hepburn]

128. That's the way the electoral college works....

..you sound like this is some kind of new information. You should have learned about this in HS Civics class.

[rcsl1998]

112. Yes, In TX, You Could Only Vote In The Caucus If You Also Voted In The Primary

So the vote-againers (those who voted in the primary AND the caucus) can flip the delegate count - Obama's strategy & organization has been much better than Clinton's, but if we want truely (small 'd') democratic results, quirky rules like this should be re-examined after this primary/caucus season, but before 2012 - REGARDLESS of how long things have run this way...

[book_worm]

12. Obama won the caucus by a larger margin than Hillary won the primary

and he has ended up with more delegates from the state.

[salbi]

69. Has Texas allocated the caucus delegates yet?

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

127. OBAMA WON TEXAS 98-95

Live with it!

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_wins_Texas_Not_Hillary

[salbi]

136. I wasn't arguing with you...I support Obama

I was only asking because CNN's page still showed 0 delegates allocated for the caucus.

[Igel]

160. No, Texas hasn't.

It won't be official until some time this summer.

3/29 county conventions are held--the delegates from the caucuses go and caucus to elect the delegates to the state-wide convention. The state-wide convention elects the delegates to the national convention.

Everybody's making projections based on precinct-level data. I don't even know if all the caucus figures have been posted. I do know that they're to be verifying that everybody who voted in the caucuses had voted dem and were in the right precinct; I can't imagine that's gone smoothly. If enough people have their votes disqualified, things can change at the precinct level.

I have no idea if caucus delegates can switch their votes mid-process.

[SoonerPride]

26. More delegates = victory

That's the way the system works.

[rcsl1998]

115. Can We Vote Twice In The GE Too? nt

[annie1]

204. i hope so, yipee! and they should do caucusing in the GE too! obama will win the GE! yay!

[billyoc]

27. Reports that Clinton won were premature. When all the votes were finally counted, Obama won. nt

[MagsDem]

53. No he didn't

She won 51% to 47%. Get over it.

[SoonerPride]

75. Delegates are like the electoral college

Really.

Ask Al Gore how much the popular vote counts.

Sorry.

[billyoc]

167. Well, Sen. Clinton is certainly being gracious about it,

allowing Sen. Obama to have the most delegates. :eyes:

[cboy4]

41. Yea, I said the same thing and got my head chewed off

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5018569#5018663

[MagsDem]

It's the new Obama math

Don't count single voters like in FL, do count double votes like people who voted in both the TX primary and the caucuses.

[SoonerPride]

78. Still spinning the same ol obfuscations?

She

has

lost.

[onehandle]

94. Which is fine with me. But whoever ends up with the most votes must be nominee.

There will be Hell to pay if Obama or Hillary is selected like Bush was.

The winner Must have a plurality of votes.

[SoonerPride]

101. Agreed

Agreed

[TheDoorbellRang]

144. No worries. Obama has most delegates and most votes, too. n/t

[Hepburn]

123. LOL...

...fantasy much?

[GOTV]

10. You're questioning the premise, which is valid, ....

... but Clinton has won larger states than those.

Plus I'm interested in why voters in big states seem to prefer Clinton (if in fact they do) and not what the delegate counts are, so I wouldn't count TX as clearly in the Obama camp.

[MagsDem]

54. TX = Clinton 51% Obama 47%

I wouldn't count TX in the Obama camp at all, but I know his supporters have an odd math they use where 47% means more people voted for Obama than the 51% that voted for Clinton.

Go figure.

[GOTV]

60. I know. They're counting delegates, which is fine, but my question concerned voters...

... and the primary went to Clinton.

In anycase, even if I consider the state a tossup, it still seems like Obama has more trouble in large states.

[yardwork]

87. Can you post what you're thinking?

In a side-by-side comparison, I don't see one or the other with a clear advantage in "big" states, and I still don't even understand how "big" states are being defined. If you mean geographically large, as your OP suggests, then it looks like Obama is winning most of them.

[GOTV]

177. I'm just curious why it seems Obama has to work harder for the large states....

... than Clinton does. And by large, I mean by population. He starts farther behind in the polls and has poorer results than in smaller states.

And I'm not anti Obama. I just voted for him in the Ohio primary and I hope he wins the nomination and the presidency.

It's just an honest question for which I see no clear answer. I've seen several theories on this thread but no answer which seems clearly correct.

[yardwork]

183. Several of us have pointed out that your premise is not supported by facts.

There is no evidence that "Obama has to work harder for the large states" (I notice you moved the goal posts) or for your earlier statement that "Obama can't win the big states."

Obama has won about the same number of large states (population-wise) as Hillary. Yes, he started out behind, and his loss in CA reflects that (he was gaining on her toward the end - CA has a long mail-in period for ballots). Obama started out behind Hillary. Yes. She was the early frontrunner. She had the name recognition.

Obama has gained on Hillary steadily and is now leading.

[GOTV]

186. Several of you have made that CLAIM but then posted evidence that does support the premise

I never said he "Can't win the big states" I said he tends not to.

He wins MORE states and so if you make the sample size large enough eventually he ties Clinton (When you look at the top 20) but he is not evenly distributed through that group. I'll repost the evidence from another poster:

Top 5 Clinton 2-1
Clinton CA, NY
Obama IL

Top 10 Clinton 4-2 (where Clinton fans draw the line, actually they draw it at 9 to exclude GA which is the epitome of your desired results selecting the data):
Clinton CA, NY, OH, NJ
Obama IL, GA

Top 15 Clinton 5-4
Clinton CA, NY, OH, NJ, MA
Obama IL, GA, VA, WA

Top 20 Tied 7-7
Clinton CA, NY, OH, NJ, MA, TN, AZ
Obama IL, GA, VA, WA, MO, MD, WI


As you limit the set to larger and larger states, Clinton's lead grows. Why is that?

[yardwork]

187. I've answered this numerous times in this thread.

We've explained - repeatedly - why Hillary won CA and NY, and why Obama won IL. That's not evidence that "as you limit the set to larger and larger states, Clinton's lead grows." That's nonsense.

[laugle]

199. It seems that the pattern for Hillary and her

strategy has been to win all the large states and the blue demo stronghold states, and she has done that successfully. These are the ones we will need to win in the GE. But I don't think she had a plan to combat Obama winning red states, she did very little campaigning in them. That was her mistake. He gained a lot of momentum winning 10-12 straight and the MSM again wrote her off, like after Iowa.

This is why many think that she is more electable. Many states Obama won are red and don't factor into the GE, making him more of a risk, as we don't know how many people will actually vote for him in the blue states. He has taken the demo base for granted, and that may be his un-doing.

Suffice to say, mistakes are on both sides, I've learned in political campaigns nothing is certain.......only time will tell.

The short answer to your question is the demo base stayed with the one they think is more qualified as opposed to a hope and change candidate.

With Hillary you get hope, change and results, IMO!

[SoonerPride]

79. Popular votes don't matter

Or don't you know the rules

[yardwork]

96. No, we're not. Don't twist the facts. Obama won more delegates.

The nominee is decided by number of delegates. Obama won more in Texas. Popular vote doesn't count in the primaries.

[Hepburn]

130. Soooooooo....

....tell us this, OK: At the convention, how are the DELEGATES apportioned? On those percentages in your post...or does Obama get more delegates at the convention due to the TX primary?

Stop your whining, OK? Obama won TX ... or he would not be getting the majority of delegates at the convention. It is really, really simple and being in denial is NOT going to change who got the most delegates at the place where it counts ~~ the convention.

:eyes:

[TheDonkey]

170. Good question but let us look at the big states

TX-CA - High latino support for Hillary
NY-NJ- Hometown advantage

What other big states has she got that she keeps dragging out? FL, well that is debatable still.

[Lucinda]

3. Because everyone can vote and Clinton wasn't very competative in several of the samller states

because they didn't have enough money.
She's been putting her resources in the big states.

[GOTV]

46. That's another good explanation. Thanks n/t

[Bread and Circus]

4. Somebody did a recent analysis and found out that Obama actually wins more "big" states...

I think it depends on what your cutoff for a big state is.

Consider yourself successfully spun by the Clinton campaign though.

Propaganda works, doesn't it?

[GOTV]

19. Yes propaganda works so.... where's your link?

Got data?

[NMMatt]

153. Here is your data:

In TX Obama got more total votes and more delegates, but I'll exclude it since you will whine about it:

Top 5 Clinton 2-1
Clinton CA, NY
Obama IL

Top 10 Clinton 4-2 (where Clinton fans draw the line, actually they draw it at 9 to exclude GA which is the epitome of your desired results selecting the data):
Clinton CA, NY, OH, NJ
Obama IL, GA

Top 15 Clinton 5-4
Clinton CA, NY, OH, NJ, MA
Obama IL, GA, VA, WA

Top 20 Tied 7-7
Clinton CA, NY, OH, NJ, MA, TN, AZ
Obama IL, GA, VA, WA, MO, MD, WI

Top 25 Obama 12-7 (The best measure of big vs small... take half and say they are big and the other half small):
Clinton CA, NY, OH, NJ, MA, TN, AZ
Obama IL, GA, VA, WA, MO, MD, WI, MN, CO, AL, LA, SC

[GOTV]

179. But you data shows the effect I'm asking about

Obama and Clinton are tied among the top 20 largest states, but as you cut the smaller states out of that list, the Clinton advantage grows.

Why?

I'm not saying that makes her a better choice, I voted for and prefer Obama. I just think that's a curious distribution that I don't have a good answer for.

[VotesForWomen]

164. "big" is irrelavent. big and purple is waht matters. nt

[skipos]

5. The better question is:

why do most people, most pledged delegates, most red states, most blue states, most swing states, most caucuses and most primaries go for Obama?

[caledesi]

13. Good one! nt

[Labors of Hercules]

45. oh shit.

That was so good I need a cigarette.

[caledesi]

6. they are blue-ik the bag in GE..Obama won red states..HC hasn't NT

[paulk]

174. it's the swing states that are important

Obama is not going to win those "red" states you mention come the GE. No Democrat is. Eleven of his wins came in states that Kerry lost by fifteen points or more. Those "victories" are meaningless in terms of the general election.

Obama has lost in the two most important swing states, Florida and Ohio. A win in either one of those states brings us the White House in November. Obama lost in Ohio despite outspending his opponent by a five to one margin. If he does the same in Pennsylvania, then the super delegates will go for Hillary.

This contest isn't about winning the nomination - it's about winning the general election. So far Hillary is making a better case for that.

[Skidmore]

7. Why do people ignore the big states that Obama won?

Why are those big states considered little?

[yardwork]

16. I think that Hillary's campaign must be framing it that way.

In fact, it's nonsense. Obama has won plenty of "big states."

[Skidmore]

25. Then we need to push back on it and loudly.

[goodgd_yall]

22. And what big states are those?

We aren't talking area. By big states we mean large electoral vote count.

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. Illinois, Texas. And middlin' big, like Missouri.

And, BTW, talking about electoral votes in the primaries is just...confused.

[goodgd_yall]

47. But the argument about Hillary winning the big states is based on the general election

That's why the point is made. In the general, can Obama carry the "Big (Blue) States"? Clinton has shown she can.

[RaleighNCDUer]

70. Running against the Republicans?

He polls better than she does.

He will carry any blue state she got in the primaries, as well as many she couldn't touch. VA and NC, just for a couple, maybe even SC - he CAN flip red states. She can't.

[yardwork]

103. That's right. Obama can flip southern red states by energizing the black vote.

I was skeptical of this until South Carolina. In SC Obama won enormous turnout.

If Obama is the nominee, the only people who will vote against him are (1) racists and (2) hardcore corporate Republicans. Most Hillary supporters will vote for Obama if he's the nominee. Obama also has crossover appeal to moderate Republicans and Independents. And he's energized the youth and African American vote like nothing I've ever seen.

[yardwork]

99. Can Obama carry the big blue states?! Absolutely!

If Obama is the nominee, only a nut would suggest that most blue state Democrats wouldn't support him. Does anyone seriously think that blue state liberal Democrats will vote for McCain instead of Obama?!

That's just irrational.

[Dawgs]

40. No link, but...

Clinton has won six states with eighty-eight or more delegates (California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Texas).

Obama has won eight (Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Washington, Maryland, Virginia, and Wisconsin.)

[yardwork]

104. And that's giving Texas to Hillary. If you count Texas for Obama, he's won 9 to her 5 "big states."

Case closed.

[paulk]

176. you are wrong

top 11 states electoral votes in general election

CA - 55 - Hillary
TX - 34 - Hillary
NY - 31 - Hillary
FL - 27 - Hillary
PA - 21 - Hillary leading in polls by over 15%
IL - 21 - Obama
OH - 20 - Hillary
MI - 17 - ??????? Hillary won uncontested primary
NJ - 15 - Hillary
GA - 15 - Obama
NC - 15 - Obama

You have to count TX for Hillary in this context - in the general election the popular vote wins the electoral votes, you don't a 2nd round of voting with a caucus.


Hillary has a large advantage in electoral votes in the top eleven states. Take out the 3 states that the Republicans will win - TX, GA, NC and Obama has only won his home state among the top eight electoral vote states. And electoral votes are what the general election is all about.

-------------------

[yardwork]

181. In the context of the general election, Obama would win every state Hillary has won in the primaries

If Obama is the nominee, he will definitely win NY, NJ, IL, and probably CA and FL. He might win some southern states.

In the general, Obama wins the same states that Hillary would win, plus some. There is no way that Obama would lose a big blue state.

The primaries are to choose a nominee. Obama leads in numbers of delegates. There's no "there there" in the argument that "Obama can't win the big states." It's wrong.

[paulk]

188. you're missing the point

Of course Obama will win the "blue" states. So will Hillary.

The Democratic candidate needs to win at least one of the big swing states. Ohio and Florida top that list. Every Presidential election comes down to that - they always do. Winning a whole bunch of states that we will lose in the GE is essentially meaningless. Twelve of Obama's wins have come in states that Kerry lost by 15 points or more.

The primaries are to choose a candidate that can win in the general election.

Obama has yet to show that he can put together the coalition required to do that. That is what the super delegates will be looking for come the convention.. Pennsylvania is his next big chance - he has to show that he can win there, or at least compete, if he expects to gain the nomination.

[yardwork]

192. I understand your point. Obama is in a better position than Hillary to win swing states.

Obama appeals to moderate Republicans and Independents. Hillary does not. That's a fact.

Further, Obama changes the electoral map by putting southern states in play. Jimmy Carter won the south in 1976. A lot of people forget that. In fact, I'd forgotten it until another DUer set me straight. Google the electoral map for 1976 and you'll see what I mean. Carter won the south. Obama can win southern states, too. Hillary can't win southern states.

[paulk]

193. The results in Ohio do not support your claim

Obama outspent Hillary by 5 to 1 and still lost in the most important swing state of all. Ohio was a big test for Obama's coalition and he failed. There is no way to spin this.

Jimmy Carter was a southern "favorite son" candidate; Obama is not. He will get out the black vote in the south, but I sincerely doubt that will be enough to win those red states. Any strategy based on winning the south is a shaky one. Too shaky to base this nomination on, IMHO.

[yardwork]

200. Obama losing to another Democrat does not predict the general election outcome.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

[paulk]

201. no, I'm not

elections are won and lost by the coalition you are able to attract to you. The coalition that Obama attracted in Ohio is not the one that wins in the general election. Obama needs to get more of the blue collar vote to win the GE. He'll have another chance in PA to prove that he can get that vote - because it's a vote that isn't guaranteed to go our way in the general.

[GOTV]

24. I don't know, are they bigger than the big states Clinton won?

[DJ13]

8. The talk of Hillary wins big states is really a non-issue

Those states have something in common besides Hillary winning, they are all (except Texas & maybe Ohio) traditionally Democratic states in the GE.

Either candidate would win those same states in the GE.

[GOTV]

29. That's what I'm wondering, what do those states have in common....

... that made them difficult for Obama?

[Captain Hilts]

36. Large enough not to be affected by white flight from the Dem party as in the South. In VA, MD, SC,-

nearly 40% of Dem primary voters were black.

In the general election it's more like 6%.

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. DLC machine. nt

[nutsnberries]

172. imho..... BINGO!

this was me reading thru the thread > :wow:
because I didn't find anyone giving what I thought was the obvious answer... DLC machine!

Not having the time to read through the whole thread, I *viewed all* and did a search on the page before finding your astute response.

:thumbsup:

[yardwork]

9. How do you define "big states?"

It appears that Obama won in Texas, as he emerged with more delegates. Obama also won in Alaska, I believe. Geographically, those are the two biggest states in the country. Population-wise, Texas isn't exactly small, either.

Hillary won in New York - a "big" state of which she is senator. Not surprising. Obama won Illinois - it's pretty "big" too, and he's the senator there.

Hillary won Ohio - no question, that state has a large population for its size, which is geographically not that "big." Obama won in South Carolina, though. Not a tiny state.

Florida doesn't count because voters were told it wouldn't count. It's more difficult for black people and other minorities to vote, as they face greater barriers to voting than affluent whites. Affluent retired white Democrats showed up to vote for Hillary as it wasn't very difficult for them to get to the polls to vote, but many blacks and minorities did not bother to show up to vote for Obama as they knew the primary wouldn't count and therefore wasn't worth their taking a morning off work and being hassled at the polling place.

Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

Seems to me that Obama is winning his share of "big states" no matter how you define them.

[meow mix]

15. arhnold, brand names, trendyness.. california cant vote without seeing a commercial

that being the case he did amazingly well thanks to my good cousins in the north.

ty north dems!!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

Yes. No.

Anything else? :)

[Barack_America]

17. Isn't Alaska pretty big?

I don't understand if your argument is geographical or pertains to population density?

[goodgd_yall]

31. Electoral votes

That is what is going to count in the general election.

[GOTV]

35. Alaska is 47th in size. I go by population because people vote and dirt doesn't n/t

[yardwork]

105. Your OP implied that you were thinking about geographic size.

In any case, Obama has won more of the states with the most delegates than Hillary.

[calico1]

89. Big in geographical size isn't what matters.

New Jersey for example is tiny compared to Alaska but it is a much bigger prize as far as electoral votes go.

[rcsl1998]

124. RI Is The Smallest Geographically, But Has More Population Than Alaska nt

[jody]

18. IMO big states tend to have primaries while smaller states have caucuses that can be stacked in

favor of one candidate by enthusiastic supporters.

[Captain Hilts]

32. Caucuses attract a different demographic than voting does. nt

[MagsDem]

57. Caucuses disenfranchise voters. Period

I mean you put it a nice way, but the bottom line is they don't allow all voters to have a choice. And they are easily rigged because there are no actual rules to ensure that caucus goers even live in the precinct they are voting in. We had lots of that phony baloney in my pricinct.

[NMMatt]

134. Obama won more primaries than Clinton

Next...

[jody]

135. I believe Hillary won primaries in big states and BO in smaller states. n/t

[NMMatt]

145. You keep adding criteria, but it still doesn't hold up

Of the 25 bigger states those that have held Primaries:
Clinton won: CA, TX, NY, OH, NJ, MA, TN, AZ
Obama won: IL, GA, VA, MO, MD, WI, AL, LA, SC

Of the 25 smaller states those that have held Primaries:
Clinton won: OK, AR, NH, RI
Obama won: UT, CT, DE, VT

No correlation. Keep trying.

[jody]

150. Do you know the top 10 states I cited have about 145 million people, almost half the U.S. population

I see you and I have reached different conclusions from the available data.

I've enjoyed the discussion.

Have a good day, :hi:

[VotesForWomen]

166. well, the "criteria" controls who wins the GE. deal with it. nt

[NMMatt]

190. That is bullshit

Every single analysis of the electoral matchup shows Obama better than Clinton. The only battleground state in which Clinton actually consistantly performs better than Obama is Florida, and in either case, McCain has a substantial lead over both of them. In PA and OH the difference is negligiable. However Obama polls significantly better in WA, OR, NM, IA, MN, WI, MO, and NH and expands the map into places like VA, NC, NV and maybe even TX. He even generally polls better in many of the big democratic states such as CA.

There really is no correlation between winning in a primary and winning in a general election, anyway. It's an apples to oranges comparison. So consider yourself effectively spun by the Clinton campagin.

If we nominate Clinton, we'll be playing defense all over trying to preserve the swing state strategy. With Obama, we have a game changer, and McCain is playing defense in NC, NV and CO allowing Obama to shore up support in the rust belt and stay on the attack all over the map.

[Independent-Voter]

20. California opened their mail-in voting A MONTH in advance. Didn't Obama actually get more votes on

day of the election. You gotta think some of those very early voters were going pretty much on name recognition that early in the contests.

[MagsDem]

58. No, he lost by 10% in CA

[democrattotheend]

77. 9% total, including early voting

I believe they did say that the margin on election day was closer. It did not look like a blowout from the exit polls. Early voting definitely hurt him there. But it probably helped him in Texas.

[RaleighNCDUer]

59. Since her lead has invariably dropped by 10-20 points in the

3-4 weeks before the voting, as the public started actually paying attention to the positions, it would not be surprising that early voting would heavily favor her. That trend has been apparent in every contest so far - even in SC, where a month out she was still the favorite.

[MagsDem]

63. Why did he get his ass kicked last week then?

[RaleighNCDUer]

82. You're ignoring what I said.

She DID take a 10-20 point drop. In TX, it was enough to put them neck and neck, with her squeaking through on the popular vote, and him taking the majority of delegates. In OH, she won by 10%, but she started with a 25% lead.

Please, show me ANY state where the vote had her dropping by less than 10%, from the polls a month out. Better yet, show me ANY state where she improved on the polls from a month out.

[yardwork]

108. I don't see that he did. Obama won more delegates in Texas than Hillary.

Obama lost Ohio, yes. However, he won Vermont, while Hillary won Rhode Island.

Looks like a draw to me. And Hillary is still trailing in delegates.

[jody]

137. Texas, Hillary 65 versus BO 61.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX

[yardwork]

139. Very close, though. The fact is that they are running neck-and-neck.

It's just not correct to say that "Obama can't win the big states."

[jody]

143. Please consider the delegates of the top 10 states.

STATE	      POPULATION     CLINTON     OBAMA
California    36,457,549       203        167
Texas         23,507,783        65         61
New York      19,306,183       139         93
Florida       18,089,888        50%        30%
Illinois      12,831,970        49        104
Pennsylvania  12,440,621       TBD
Ohio          11,478,006        74         65
Michigan      10,095,643        55%        40%?
Georgia        9,363,941        26         61
North Carolina 8,856,505       TBD

Note:
Illinois: BO’s home state however Clinton 53% of the 60 and older white vote
Georgia, BO received 79% to 96% of the black vote and 58% of the 18-29 white vote.
Georgia, Clinton received 60% and 63% of the white vote 45-59 and 60 and older.

IMO the results show BO only won primaries in large states where he had the home court advantage, i.e. Illinois, or in a state like Georgia with a large African American population that voted overwhelmingly for BO.

Source data is exit polls at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

[yardwork]

168. Thank you for posting the actual data. Let's take a close look.

Florida and Michigan don't count. The turnout was influenced by the fact that the voters were told the primaries would not count. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Drop Florida and Michigan - impossible to know how they would have turned out if the primaries had been real.

We should expect both Obama and Hillary to win their home states. Take NY and IL out of the comparison.

That leaves California, Texas, Ohio, and Georgia. I see conflicting info on which candidate won the most delegates in TX. Let's call it a draw. That leaves CA, OH, and GA. Obama won GA.

That leaves only two "big" states that Hillary has won, compared to one for Obama. This is hardly proof that "Obama can't win the big states."

I predict that Obama will win NC and all the other southern states. Hillary may win PA.

[jody]

173. Even if "Obama will win NC and all the other southern states" IMO unlikely he will win any in GE.

[yardwork]

180. Obama is more likely to win southern states than Hillary.

The last time a Democrat won the south in the presidential election was 1976.

[jody]

189. We agree on one thing, neither BO nor HC is likely to win southern states including possibly FL. n/t

[paulk]

196. actually, Hillary can probably win Arkansas.

and has a shot at Florida - two states Obama has no chance in...

[XemaSab]

21. I'm not supporting your premise, mind

but I think people in larger states are more willing to let the MSM do their thinking for them.

[mudesi]

23. Because she's CAMPAIGNING in them

And she's not really winning them by all that much. She lost Texas and she only took Ohio by 10 points.

But the other states are being virtually ignored by her campaign. They "don't matter".

[frazzled]

28. These are generally the Democratic-machine states

whose power brokers and leaders are in the Clinton camp for a number of reasons, not least because of political chits owed from the time of the (Bill) Clinton administration.

Yet she is not winning by huge margins.

[Bread and Circus]

39. How's the machine work? I'd like a good explanation of that....

I believe it's true, I've just never had it explained.

[theboss]

132. The democratic machine typically is Unions + Seniors + Blacks + Latinos

Machine politics is based around finding large pockets of like-minded voters and getting them to the polls at the same time with commands of who to vote for.

The Democratic Machine has largely fallen apart since the '70s but in the northeast you can still find pockets where it works. It works this way.

Before election day:
1. Get the Unions to canvass for you.
2. Use the City Politicians to get the patronage workers organized.
3. Speak at all the black churches.
4. Speak at every senior center and assisted living facility you can find.
5. Flood the spanish-langauge stations with ads.

On election day:
1. Get a bus to the Union Hall.
2. Have the patronage workers get their families to the polls.
3. Get the black preachers on your side to GOTV.
4. Get a bus to the senior center
5. Find the Latino vote wherever you can and get them to the polls somehow.

In the modern aga, Unions and patronage workers have largely merged.

If it is still too close to call, you need get to the college towns and get the kids to the polls.

That's how Democrats win elections, Charlie Brown.

[yardwork]

169. The African American machine can be very effective in the south.

Obama is using the black machine to get out the vote in the south to very good effect.

[GOTV]

44. That makes some sense n/t

[kenfrequed]

30. Hmm

Too broad and inaccurate a generalization to speculate properly on it.

[stillcool]

33. don't know..

States that Obama has won...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/...
Alabama
Alaska
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Nevada
North Dakota
South Carolina
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
+Democrats abroad
Nevada- Delegates-25--Obama 13 Clinton 12
states that were tied
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
Missouri--Delegates-72--Obama-36 Clinton-36
Texas-Delegates-193-- Obama 92- Clinton-92
Michigan- Delgegates 0 * Obama--Clinton--
Forida-Delegates 0*- Obama-- Clinton--
New Hampshire- Delegates-22 Obama 9 Clinton 9
Total Delegates--Obama--1589 Hillary--1470

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

[Cali_Democrat]

34. I live in California

IMO its because a good amount of people just didn't really know Obama all that well. I think in places like California and New York Clinton was able to capitalize on name recognition. Also, alot of Hispanics here were so fond of the Clinton years. However, alot of politically active Democrats like myself went for Obama.

[enid602]

43. big states

Big states tend to be more urban and progressive; they want a more liberal platform.

[movonne]

50. Well then they wouldn't vote for hillary...

[enid602]

52. but

But they did, Blanche, they did . . .

[onenote]

55. that certainly describes Texas --- Not.

[MagsDem]

65. It actually does describe Texas

Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio are all urban centers. All went to Clinton, and like Seattle carries WA even though much of it is rural, they won her the state.

[onenote]

107. So do you actually believe the stuff you make up?

First, the issue was whether Clinton did better in big states because they are more liberal and I pointed out that the generalization about big states didn't hold when it came to Texas. (I could've just as easily pointed out that there are some very liberal small states -- perhaps you've heard of Vermont)?

Anyway, if you want to shift the discussion to cities, that's your prerogative. But you might try actually checking the facts before you pull some claim out of thin air, such as the claim that Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio all went to CLinton. Obama crushed Clinton in Dallas. In fact his strongest areas of the state were ... wait for it....Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/county/#val=TXDEMMAPPRIMARY1

Oh, and by the way, Seattle is in King County, which went for Obama in the primary by a 55.5/42 margin. In fact, when you claim that Clinton won Washington, are you referring to Washington on the planet Mars? Because Obama won both the caucus and the beauty pageant primary in Washington State, US of A.

Finally,while I haven't checked, I'm guessing that, in big ol' liberal California, Obama did better than HRC in San Francisco and HRC did better than Obama in Orange County.

Thanks for playing.

[BornBlue]

149. You must be f-ing crazy

Dallas went to Obama, Austin went to Obama, and Houston went to Obama, she did take San Antonio. So my question is who's math is more screw-y, Obama supporters or Clinton?

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/county/#TXDEMMAPprimary

[last_texas_dem]

185. Huh?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX

This map (scroll 3/4th's of the way down the page) shows quite the opposite. Of the cities you listed, only San Antonio voted for Clinton. Without rural and small-town voters, she wouldn't have come close to "winning" Texas, which is the exact opposite of your claim. Making false claims on her behalf does your candidate no favors.

[yardwork]

114. If that is true, then they will certainly support the Democratic nominee in the GE.

Frankly, I don't think of Texas as being particularly "urban and progressive," nor do I consider it a shoo-in for the Democrats in November. Ditto Ohio. It's fairly urban but not in the way you mean, I think. Nobody would say that Ohio (a big state) is more "progressive" than Vermont (a little state). Hillary won Ohio. Vermont went to Obama.

But let's accept your premise. Progressive states will support the Democratic nominee, whether it's Obama or Clinton.

[movonne]

48. I wonder if that would be true if the voting on the big states were

held today...back then Obama was just starting to get his mojo...I think he has pulled of a miracle because at the early stages he was hardly known...I am an Obama supporter (after Edwards dropped out) and I thought he would be going nowhere and look at him now especially he is up against one of the most well known people of our time..

[GOTV]

64. Well, we still have PA which is a pretty big state (6th)

And Obama is pretty far behind in the polls. Certainly he'll close it some but I think he's still lose it.

That might be some evidence to test your theory.

[OzarkDem]

49. Obama outspent Clinton 3 to 1 in Ohio and still lost

Ohioans weren't buying what he was selling.

The bigger states generally have primaries instead of caucuses. Primaries allow more Dems to vote, since you can do early or absentee voting. In caucuses, you have to be able to travel to a location on a particular date and time and remain there for hours - something many voters can't do. You can also participate in most caucuses by only presenting a driver's license - no voter registration required.

Obama has been able to exploit the caucus system to his advantage, but has had a harder time in regular primary states.

[ProSense]

51. Obama's big state lead in total popular votes

The big-state myth debunked:

State................Obama..............Clinton

California...........2,126,000..........2,553,000

Texas ..............1,358,000..........1,459,000

New York.............698,000..........1,003,000

Illinois...............1,302,000............662,000

Ohio...................982,000..........1,212,000

Georgia...............704,000.............330,000

New Jersey..........492,000.............603,000

Virginia...............627,000.............350,000

Washington.........354,000.............316,000


Total................8,643,000 ........8,487,000

Obama by more than 150,000

more

[MagsDem]

61. GA is a "big state" - LOL

VA is a big state? Yeah, I know, it's the new Obama math.

[ProSense]

68. NJ is a big state? LOL!

Oh, I forgot, the only big states that count are the ones Hillary won.

[GOTV]

72. It's the 9th largest state. Va is 12th. Certainly 2 of the larger states. n/t

[yardwork]

119. Well then define "big states."

What is a "big state" to you? Is it Ohio? Alaska? Texas? California? New York? Illinois? Florida?

You're saying that since Hillary won Ohio, Texas, California, New York, and Florida - then Obama "can't win the big states?" Is that your argument?

Of course Hillary won New York - she's their senator. Obama won Illinois. The size of those states wasn't the determining factor.

Florida does not count. A lot of Obama's supporters wouldn't have voted in a primary they were told wouldn't count. In Michigan (is that a "big state?") Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

Texas? Obama won the majority of delegates.

Ohio? Hillary won that, no question

California? Hillary won, but her support dropped as time went on. CA allowed mail-in ballots a month in advance.

I just don't see the argument that "Obama can't win the big states" is valid.

[tandem5]

66. please remove WA from those totals or include FL and MI

One minute WA's primary is bashed as a "beauty contest" because its non binding and because Clinton's deficit was much smaller than the parallel caucus results, the next its being used to argue an Obama advantage.

[MagsDem]

67. It's special Obama math

LMAO -- these folks are just like Bushbots.

[ProSense]

73. "these folks are just like Bushbots" I think you're the one in denial

Note: Hillary is losing!

Can you accept that fact?

[rcsl1998]

131. aka 'Fuzzy Math'

[ProSense]

71. Here, Obama's big state lead total popular votes

he big-state myth debunked:

State................Obama..............Clinton

California...........2,126,000..........2,553,000

Texas ..............1,358,000..........1,459,000

New York.............698,000..........1,003,000

Illinois...............1,302,000............662,000

Ohio...................982,000..........1,212,000

Georgia...............704,000.............330,000

New Jersey..........492,000.............603,000

Virginia...............627,000.............350,000

Total................8,289,000 ........8,171,000

Obama by more than 115,000

[paulk]

142. here's a better way to rank this -

top 11 states electoral votes in general election

CA - 55 - Hillary
TX - 34 - Hillary
NY - 31 - Hillary
FL - 27 - Hillary
PA - 21 - Hillary leading in polls by over 15%
IL - 21 - Obama
OH - 20 - Hillary
MI - 17 - ??????? Hillary won uncontested primary
NJ - 15 - Hillary
GA - 15 - Obama
NC - 15 - Obama

Hillary has a large advantage in electoral votes in the top eleven states.

[grantcart]

125. I'm honored lol knew we would have to bring it out a couple more times

[Utopian Leftist]

56. Too early

There is one reason Obama lost California, that I have not seen anyone mention.

New York of course went to Hillary, being her (at least "current") home state. Though not by the margin that Barack took Illinois.

No truly honest or sincere person can claim that the battle in Florida was fair since so many Obama supporters were told the results would not matter, and therefore stayed home.

But there is one other factor about Florida, New York and California that people are forgetting: how early they voted. All of those states voted before or on Super Tuesday. And before that date, many people were unsure about whether Obama was actually a viable candidate. I live in California and I know at least one person who has said that, had she thought Obama had a real chance of getting the nomination, she would have voted for him. Many people's impression of Obama's candidacy changed when the results of Super Tuesday came out. Super Tuesday was a sort of turning point and even though the vote in California was fairly close, it would be even closer were it held today.

Add in the idea that Ohio largely went to Clinton because of the "kitchen sink" she threw at Barack for two whole weeks, during which he fought back very little, and it starts to look more like those big state wins were at least partially the result of several disparate factors--more coincidence than any logical, over-riding reason why Hillary would win the bigger states.

Of course, the Clintonistas will immediately scream that nothing I'm saying could possibly even a tiny bit explain her big state wins. They don't listen to reason anyway. This post is intended for Obama supporters (or anyone who is still capable of RATIONAL thinking!) to consider.

[susankh4]

62. Because those are the ones she focuses on....

[Seabiscuit]

76. Because Obama can't buy caucuses in primary states.

[SoonerPride]

84. Funny how he wins more primary states too

but keep on spinning the good lies

[Seabiscuit]

91. Only the little ones. Not the ones that really count.

[onenote]

110. so, if HRC gets the nomination, do you think she should skip campaigning in Virginia

since it doesn't "really count"?

[TwilightGardener]

80. Except for California, the governors are on her side and lend her their machinery.

[ContinentalOp]

81. My take:

The 10 biggest states are CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PN, OH, MI, GE, & NC. FL and MI don't count and NC and PN haven't voted yet. Obama won Illinois and Georgia. That leaves CA, TX, NY and OH as Clinton's top 10 "big state" wins.

CA and NY both voted on Super Tuesday when her name recognition was probably still a big factor over Obama. She obviously won her home state. TX and OH are both red states and it's not surprising that more conservative Democrats would lean toward Clinton. If we were going to include FL the same would apply there. For that matter, much of CA is very conservative and the county by county breakdown reflects this with Obama doing better in Northern CA and the big cities, and Clinton doing better in Orange County and inland.

So I don't think it's fair to say that she leads in the big states. I think it's more accurate to say that she has an advantage in the big states that voted earlier and in the big states that lean more conservative.

[avrdream]

98. Thanks for at least attempting to answer the OP.

By your reasoning, Hillary should do quite well in the big states against McCain then, because she has done well in the conservative areas. I haven't seen this analyzed in any poll (specific areas of the state comparing Hill/Ob to McCain) but it would be interesting to see.

[RaleighNCDUer]

126. Nice try,

but that is entirely too rational for this discussion.

[DemVet]

83. Podunk, USA....all that is needed to be said.

[SoonerPride]

86. I live in Podunk

And we voted overwhelmingly for Clinton

[question everything]

92. Big states are more diverse. You don't have the southern states

where the black voters are a major percentage of the Democrats and who decided to vote for their man.

And I think that caucuses are more dominant in smaller states, I am not sure. Supposedly this is a system where neighbors get together. Can you imagine doing something like that in California or New York? Only Texas had the strange double voting and Clinton won the primary while Obama - the caucus. Why? Because, if Minnesota was any indication, everyone came to the caucus and no one checked to see if the voters even lived in the precinct to qualify for voting, and there were no mechanism to prevent anyone from voting twice, in two precincts.

You will also have to check open vs. closed primaries. The Democrats went for Hillary. Obama has been winning thanks to Republicans and Independent with no assurance on how they will vote in November, if at all.

[loveangelc]

95. Obama supporters: Obama did not win Texas, ok?

Hillary got more votes in TX and if Obama had won TX, Hillary would be out of the race right now. Yes, he won more delegates, but as far as voters go, Hillary won the state.

[Hippo_Tron]

102. I agree except that she would be out of the race if he had won Texas

The entire narrative for the past few weeks was that she has to win Ohio and Texas or she's absolutely out of the race. Before they'd even called Ohio let alone called Texas, the pundits on election night were talking about how she was back in it.

Obama would be better off if he'd won Texas, but marginally. The MSM would be spinning her loss in Texas in a way that would allow her to stay in.

[loveangelc]

106. I dont think so. I think even if she stayed in, the superdelegates would have stepped in

and effectively ended the race by going to obama.

[Hippo_Tron]

120. If he had won TX in a landslide than yes, eeked out a win I don't think so

The super delegates are, just like the rest of the country, followers of the mainstream media to a great extent.

[yardwork]

109. The number of votes don't matter - just the delegates.

Once the number of delegates are added up and the nominee is chosen, the whole game starts completely over again.

[SoonerPride]

121. Wrong.

Delegates count, not popular votes, just like the electoral college.

That's the system we've got.

Sorry.

[loveangelc]

141. More people chose hillary in texas than obama. Yes, Obama won the delegate count.

but it doesnt take away from the fact that more people in texas actually VOTED for hillary. Are you realistically going to say that doesnt matter?

[SoonerPride]

151. Not that it doesn't matter, but that the delegates are what matters more

Since that is the way the representative democracy system works.

The winner of the popular vote is largely irrelevant.

Gore won in 2000.
But Bush became president.

We have a delegate system based upon proportional representation, not a popular vote system with "winner take all." So, since the real number that matters is the delegate total and since Obama has more delegates, he "won" the state, regardless of how many people voted for Clinton.

If you don't like the system, then effort should be made to change it for future elections. However, that is the system we have.

Delegates matter more than popular vote tallies.

[Levgreee]

111. Well, NY is her home state, California and Ohio had friendly demographics... what else was there?

Florida and Texas also have friendly demographics for Hillary.

[BzaDem]

113. Favorable demographics can help her in November.

[Levgreee]

118. those same demographics largely fall to Obama(since he's dem) rather the Repubs, though

[Perky]

116. It is a couple of things

it it not so much about size as it is about blueness

First it is institutional support which carries weight with down scale white voters.

Secondly, there is no hard fast rule. Obama won Washington, Wisconsin, Maryland and Connecticut as well as Illinois which obviously youhave to discount

Hillary won Massachussets hands down. SHe won California largely on the basis of Hispanic support and she won New Jersey. New York you have to discount.

Ohio is an iteresting case because of it high white ethnic and blue Collar. SHe probably got the bump she needed on NAFTA but were that one played out again. it could have gone either way.


Texas and Missouri were ties.

But Georgia is now a top ten EV state now and so is NC Obamw will win both.

So You have Michigan and FLorida and PA.

Michigan in redo is probably a pickem, but I suspect Florida is in Hillary's camp regardless largely because she ahs a great base there. Blue collar retirees and New yorkers. WHat will be interesting is whether or not she does as well if the snowbirds are gone.

Pennsylvania has a little of everything. SO I do not know which way it will go,







You discount

[katty]

117. Lots of DIVERSITY in big states + lots of PEOPLE

[CampDem]

122. I have wondered this too

As far as the big states (as defined by high population) I think Hillary wins these because the economy is hitting the big cities very hard. Maybe these people don't want to vote for someone they feel may be more of an unknown? Maybe they are not as willing to take a risk?

The geographically big states seem to be going more for Obama. My state is Alaska and it went overwhelmingly for Obama. Our state is well off financially so it could be that the majority of Dem's here feel secure enough to go for the lesser known candidate.

While I like and respect Obama, I voted for Hillary. I am a social worker have seen many programs all across the state being de-funded and our poor, homeless and mentally ill being thrown to the wolves. I feel that Hillary is the better candidate to protect our most vulnerable, but will vote for Obama if he wins. The bottom line is that we need a Dem.

[theboss]

129. Her loyal voting blocs are locked in those states

She's really only won four big blue/swing states in contested elections - CA, NY, OH, MA. New York is her state. California has always had a love affair with Bill. And all four went by the script.

Her blocs are baby boomer women, labor, and Latinos. When she gets those voters in big numbers, she wins. NY and CA are pretty muched locked in for the Clintons. MA and OH she got the women and the unions out in big numbers.

She is really running a classic 1970s campaign.

[NMMatt]

133. They don't it's demographics

Of the top 20, 7: CA, NY, OH, NJ, MA, TN, AZ have gone for Clinton. 7 for Obama: IL, GA, VA, WA, MO, WI, MD. 1 split: TX. 2 states that haven't voted favor Clinton: PA and FL. 3 states favor Obama MI, IN and NC. Obviously there is no "Big State" preference for Clinton. States that favor Clinton either have large Latino populations: CA, AZ, FL, TX (though she only split the state Caucus v. Primary), have lots of unemployed Appalachian mountain dwellers (OH, PA, TN) or are states located in the greater NY area: (NY, PA, MA, NJ). States that favor Obama are in the South (GA, NC, TX), Midwest (IL, MO, WI, IN, MI), Mid-Atlantic (MD, VA), Pacific Northwest (WA) or in otherwards... everywhere else. Plus he sweeps the Plains and Mountain West where there are no "big states" and throw in AK, HI and non-state-dwelling Democrats.

So Obama is a national candidate, Clinton a regional one.

[Romulox]

138. Mi "favors" Obama???

:wtf:

[NMMatt]

147. The latest poll has it 41 - 41%

And he has outperformed just about every poll once a campaign begins - OH dropped from -20% to -10%, TX from -20% to -3%, etc. Also, demographically, MI is most similar to WI with a higher African American population. This state favors Obama.

[Romulox]

152. Nice backpedaling! Why not just outsource the election to Rasmussen?

:eyes:

[NMMatt]

156. Backpeddling? It favors Obama as much as PA favors Clinton.

You are right, though, that the votes decide elections, not polls. However when talking about "favoring" a candidate obviously it is based on demographics and polls.

[Romulox]

157. It's just that I can't see how a tie in a poll translates into "favors"--

In addition, I feel that Obama's pointed indifference toward the plight of the Michigan voter (and I mean that both in the sense of the primary fiasco as well as our economic pain,) will tend to harm his chances here in any re-do and in the fall.,

[NMMatt]

158. If you don't see how Clinton needs a substatial early poll lead to win

Then you are not paying attention.

[Romulox]

162. If you don't see how the 48 state strategy harms Obama in Michigan

then likewise.

[onenote]

146. I'm an obama supporter, but your analysis is a bit silly

HRC won in California and New York and Ohio and Arizona and TN but she's a "regional" candidate? That's nuts. Both Obama and Clinton have national appeal. There are any number of factors in play, in degrees that vary from situation to situation, when it comes to assessing primary voting. You are correct, however, that demographics play an important role, particularly the size of the "over 65" population and the size of the African American and Hispanic populations. All influence the outcome, among other factors.

[NMMatt]

148. She is a regional candidate with appeal limited to 3 regions

Southwest, Appalachia and New York.

Obama wins everything else.

[onenote]

154. not really

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008

We could debate endlessly about how to define "regions". But as this map shows, in terms of popular vote, both candidates have areas in which they are strongest but there are other areas where both have had successes.

[Jed Dilligan]

140. California is full of hapless idiots who wandered in from wherever

You can see their slack-jawed faces in the other cars every time you get on the freeway. Half of them probably thought they were voting for Bill Clinton. They do things for the same reason they moved here: because it's big and everyone has heard of it.

[mculator]

159. eww

obama supporters give me the creeps around here

[Jed Dilligan]

161. The feeling is mutual

[backscatter712]

155. Diebold n/t

[VotesForWomen]

163. too big to buy. nt

[Freida5]

165. Because the Obama thugs cannot intimidate a primary like they do in caucuses

[anonymous171]

171. At my WA state caucus an 60 yr old woman started yelling at me for supporting Obama.

[yardwork]

184. Is she a racist? They're everywhere. I'm betting that they usually vote Republican anyway.

[quantass]

178. Or: Why does Hillary RARELY win States? If she can win then why can't she win often?

Sounds to me it has something to do with her name recognition, less time for Obama to campaign and get his name known to the people, demographics of that state, and the shear mass of the state to get his name out....with that theory i would guess his having 6-weeks to focus solely on PA should help him alot. The only thing against him is the demographics favor Hillary. But his greatest asset is his ability to move people his direction in time.

[Jamastiene]

182. Maybe the Kool Aid spoils on long trips,

thereby negating its effects in larger states.

[redherring]

198. It's because republican votes are insignificant

All those small states that Obama won are primarily red states. Hell, some of them went 70%+ for Bush. These are states that lack democrats. So basically, because they hate Hillary, they decided to vote for Obama. The reason he can't win big states is that republicans can't skew the results like that.

[annie1]

202. it's usually closed primaries, plus obama can't hit all the small towns...

and woop everyone into a frenzy.