OBAMA HAS WON MORE BLUE STATES SO FAR

[redstate_democrat]

What's with this argument Hillary has that she is winning all of the states that "matter" for us in the GE? Obama has won more Blue states so far with 11 (Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Hawaii) to Hillary's 6 Blue states (California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire).

She might have won Ohio, but Ohio was a red state last time. Bush won that state by more than 108,000 votes last time. I would think that if the state is starting off as a Bush lover state, then Clinton would be the last person you would want to run there. It energizes the Republican base in that state. Also, if Obama is not on the ticket, it's a loser anyway due to Cleveland, and Cincinnati's, Columbus urban population not giving a rat's ass and staying home. Rasmussen has McCain winning Ohio against both Dems so far. This tells you a lot about Hillary's voters in the primary.

She also makes a big deal about winning Florida too, even though it was uncontested. Let's look at the facts. Bush won Florida by over 400,000 votes last time. Since this state is already starting off as Bush country, wouldn't the last thing you want to do is run Clinton down there to energize the Repug base? They have a Repug governor who has endorsed McCain. Not to mention Gore "lost" there. If Obama is not on the top of the ticket due to nefarious reasons, you run the chance of the urban voter not coming out either. It's a loser if Clinton is on there either way.

Now let's look at Pennsylvania. Kerry won this state by about 140,000 votes last time. Rasmussen has Obama beating McCain in Pennsylvania by 10% and Clinton LOSING by 2% in Penn to McCain. Energized Repug base if Clinton on ticket. Depressed urban vote in Philly and Pittsburgh if Obama not on ticket. Loser.

Now lets look at Missouri. This is a unique situation. Bush won by 200,000 votes there. Missouri could swing to Democrat if Obama is on the ticket. He won Missouri in the primary. Senator McCaskill has endorsed him. She won the state wide race just two years ago. She could get the vote out for him. If Clinton is on the ticket, energized Repug base, depressed urban vote. If Obama is on the ticket, there is a fighting chance with Senator McCaskill behind him. Governor Sebelius could be helpful in the same way for Obama in Kansas.

In New Mexico, Bush won by 6,000 votes. Rasmussen polls show Obama would TIE McCain here. Clinton would lose by 13%. This says a lot about her voters in the primary. Nadar got over 4,000 votes here. Obama would have a better chance of picking up those Nadarites than Clinton.

Bush won Iowa by 10,000 votes last time. Obama won Iowa in the primary. Rasmussen has Obama winning against McCain in Iowa by 3% and Clinton losing to McCain by 10%

Obama won Colorado in the primary. Rasmussen has Obama beating McCain by 10% and Clinton losing to McCain by 14%. This is a possible pick up.

Michigan would be in trouble with Clinton as the nominee despite her winning the "primary" uncontested and with Obama's name not even on the ballot. McCain would tie Clinton. Obama would beat McCain by 8% in Michigan. If Obama not the nominee due to nefarious reasons, Dems risk depressed urban turnout or stay at home vote.

Let's look at Nevada. Obama technically won Nevada because of delegates. Polls show Clinton LOSING against McCain by 9% and Obama winning by 12% against McCain. This is a possible pick up in the West for Dems come November.

Let's look at Oregon. Obama will probably win this in the primary. Clinton loses against McCain by 3% and Obama wins against McCain by 9%.

Even in Wisconsin, which he won, Obama wins by 1% against McCain, Clinton loses against McCain by 12%

Obama won Minnesota. Guess what? Clinton LOSES against McCain by 5%, and Obama wins by 14%

Basically, what I am saying is that the states Clinton won will be won anyway. Kerry beat Bush by over 2 million votes in New York. Kerry beat Bush by over 1,200,000 votes in California. Massachusetts? By over 700,000 votes. Rhode Island? 100,000 votes. New Jersey? Over 200,000 votes. New Hampshire, with its 4 electoral votes, by 10,000.

Iowa and New Mexico switched to Red last time. They can switch back. Kerry lost Virginia by a little over 200,000 votes against Bush. Obama won Virginia. If Webb gets on with Obama, he could swing Virginia the Dems way.

Basically, the best hope for the Dems is Obama. He has a way of getting the Independents and defected Republicans. He can bring certain states into play and save other close states from going red. The radical Republican base won't be energized in a contest between McCain and Obama. Hillary is the one person who can get them out of the house. Since Hillary has said that both she and McCain have experience to be in White House and have supported the Iraq war, what real choice will there be for the anti-war voter?

Obama will bring the younger voters out. He will bring the urban vote out en masse. He will bring the Independents out for him. He will get defected Republicans/Libertarians. He will have the excitement and money behind him. And he will have done all of this fair and square by following the DNC rules.

Now, tell me again, why the hell are we still debating this. Why are we not waging holy war against John McCain?

[grantcart]

1. Its a mystery - somehow becoming more competitive in your competition's state

is now a negative thing.

[redstate_democrat]

5. It boggles my mind

how the Clinton camp has shifted this debate. They have literally framed the contest to where nothing but the states she has won matters anymore for Democrats. She says she's won the state that matter, but we need more than six damn states we will WIN anyway to win the election. And Obama has won the MOST blue states...blue states that could switch Repub with Clinton as the nominee. What are we not getting about this?

[nonconformist]

16. It's a PRIMARY. It's not "competitive"

We're not going up against Republicans, we're going up against other Democrats.

[Joe the Revelator]

2. Blue states don't count anymore.

[Umbram]

3. Someone needs to make a map of the US according to Clinton supporters (nt)

[XemaSab]

I don't think you can do that in two or even three dimensions

Texas would have to be simultaneously massive and tiny, and it might just rip a hole in the space-time continuum to do that. :o

[SoCalDem]

8. Here's an interesting one a DUer posted today (not exactly what you asked for)

[PBS Poll-435]

19. Um...OK

I will take that map. <and win>

[NJSecularist]

4. Hillary can lay claim to winning more important states...

such as Florida and Ohio.... but as you have said, Obama has won more blue states...

[XemaSab]

7. And somewhere the founding fathers, who decided to give each state 2 senators

so there wouldn't be "more" and "less" important states, are spinning in their graves. x(

[NJSecularist]

9. Give me a break....

Florida and Ohio are very important. Both states have caused us to lose the presidency in the last 2 elections. In order to win this election, we will need to carry one of these states. They are undeniably very important, unless you don't want to win the White House and want Rethug rule for another 4 years...

[redstate_democrat]

11. Oh, I know they are important

but see my OP. I said that if we run Clinton in either Florida or Ohio, it's a loser, for the reasons I stated in the OP. Obama is really the only rational choice we have for those states IF we want to win them.

[NJSecularist]

14. Huh?

Hillary won both states by double digits. Your theory is clearly not supported by facts. If he can't come within 10 points of Hillary in either Florida or Ohio in a Democratic primary, what makes you think he is a better candidate for the general election in those states than Hillary?

[redstate_democrat]

17. Well for one,

Florida was uncontested. Many people didn't even come out to vote because they believed their votes wouldn't count. The so-called tax issue on the ballot kept a lot of low income, non property owners away. Florida is Repug country. Repug Governor, etc. We have to start from there. Now, I see Florida right now as merky. The primary vote there was tainted, inaccurate. Plus, this was a DEMOCRATIC primary. This does not take into account a head to head match up. So far, polls show BOTH democrats LOSING to McCain. Now, in a situation like that, do you run Clinton or Obama? Obama, with his ability to bring out the vote and stave off a depressed urban vote, and with Clinton's ability to energize the Repugs, I think Obama is the more rational choice.

In Ohio, both Democrats lose in the GE according to polls. Now, do you want a fighting chance there or what? Some of Hillary's primary voters would switch over to McCain. I don't see many Obama supporters switching over. PLUS, if Hillary gains the nomination by nefarious reasons, guess what? Ohio won't even be in play due to a depressed and bitter urban vote. So, which path is more favorable?

[NJSecularist]

21. Well...

"Now, in a situation like that, do you run Clinton or Obama? Obama, with his ability to bring out the vote and stave off a depressed urban vote, and with Clinton's ability to energize the Repugs, I think Obama is the more rational choice."

The Thugs will come to the polls regardless in November. We need somebody who can build a winning coalition of liberal whites, blacks, Jews and Latinos in Florida. Who is that? I have no idea. But seeing as how Hillary dominated the primary, and it wasn't even close, and even today Hillary still has a 15 point lead in recent polls, I still think Hillary should be favored here.

"In Ohio, both Democrats lose in the GE according to polls. Now, do you want a fighting chance there or what? Some of Hillary's primary voters would switch over to McCain. I don't see many Obama supporters switching over."

This is just wishful thinking, not supported by any facts.

[redstate_democrat]

25. You are still

not taking into account polling against John McCain

HILLARY CLINTON loses both Ohio and Florida against John McCain.

Obama loses Ohio by 1% and Clinton loses by 3%. If Clinton gains the nomination due to nefarious reasons, can you not see that there will be a very depressed turnout in the urban community due to this, widening McCain's lead?

I don't look at Florida's primary as accurate. There was no campaigning there. If Obama is given a chance to campaign there, this lead she has can evaporate just like it did in Ohio, Texas, and now Penn.

Oh, and nothing will energize the Repug base like Hillary. Obama has shown that he can steal Repug votes and most importantly, get out his own base.

[NJSecularist]

26. And why do you not assume the flip flop....

that if Obama wins the nomination, can you not see that there will be very depresed turnout in the female Democratic community, a very key voting bloc to win the election?

[redstate_democrat]

28. I CAN see that,

but I can see that it wouldn't be as wide spread as in the case of Obama not getting the nomination. Here's why. Obama basically has won. He has the most delegates and she would have to perform a miracle to win this with the elected delegate count. The Super Delegates will not over turn the will of the voters unless they would like to see a total demolishing of the party. If Clinton lost, it would be seen as though she lost on the merits...she didn't get enough elected votes. If Obama lost, Clinton would be seen as stealing the nomination. Obama supporters would have a lot more to be upset about.

Now, where Hillary won, states like New York, California, etc, we will win there anyway. Where Obama won, we MIGHT NOT. Do we really want to risk losing Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc too?

Oh, and many, many women support Obama. They share that demographic. Can't say the same about Hillary in regards to urban, young, Independent voters, however.

[XemaSab]

15. I'm a fan of the 50-state strategy

We should have had Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Iowa in play for starters. W could have won Ohio and Florida and still been 20 electoral votes short.

I'm hoping this time we get ALL those states plus Missouri and Virginia (but less AZ, sadly), and McCain can go soak his head.

http://www.grayraven.com/ec/

[AtomicKitten]

6. She's just throwing out crap to see what sticks.

She's already lost and doesn't know it yet.

[FrenchieCat]

13. I think someone should mention it to her before she does further damage

to our nominee....you think? :shrug:

[JimGinPA]

10. Seems To Me He Has Every Argument For The Nomination...

Delegates, contests won, popular vote, electability, ability to bring new voters to the party, donations and coattails. Have I left anything out?

[redstate_democrat]

12. most

blue states won so far.

:rofl:

[JimGinPA]

20. I Didn't Want To Xerox You

:rofl:

[redstate_democrat]

23. lol

:rofl:

[BenDavid]

18. very simple.....go back to 2000. you all remember the race

gore was to win but did not even take his home state.....well lets use that as a base.....

I say hrc will win all the gore blue states, plus new hampshire (gore lost) and win in both florida and ohio and not have to win tennessee......any candidate will have to win the gore states of 2000(plus new hampshire) and add either florida or ohio..therein lies the presidency...flordia and ohio look damn good for hrc....

all those states that obama might, and I mean might does not really bode well in the general.....

[redstate_democrat]

22. What are you talking about?

Did you see the polling numbers in the OP?

CLINTON LOSES BOTH OHIO AND FLORIDA AGAINST JOHN MCCAIN. She is no better situation than Obama. Obama at least has the chance to pick up additional, purple states, AND stave off a possible depressed urban vote in states like Michigan. We could get Missouri, NEw Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, etc, see my OP.

Hillary MIGHT have won the OHIO primary (I DON'T COUNT FLORIDA), but guess what, she WILL NOT keep those voters. It is a wash for her in Ohio. The BEST chance we have is flipping some Repugs, getting the Indys, college kids, and getting out the urban vote en masse there. Hillary will activate the Repug base. They went for BUSH last time. Do you think they will LEAP towards HILLARY CLINTON?

[NJSecularist]

24. ...

CLINTON LOSES BOTH OHIO AND FLORIDA AGAINST JOHN MCCAIN. She is no better situation than Obama. Obama at least has the chance to pick up additional, purple states, AND stave off a possible depressed urban vote in states like Michigan. We could get Missouri, NEw Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, etc, see my OP.

Why do you assume that only Barack Obama has upside? Why do you assume that Hillary can't bridge the gap in Ohio and Florida? For the record, she is leading in Ohio over McCain according to SurveyUSA.

I also think it's wishful thinking to think that we "MIGHT" get Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada. We may pick up one. Florida and Ohio are inherently more important.

[redstate_democrat]

27. Well, for one,

I don't believe that if Hillary essentially steals the nomination, she will be able to bridge anything. He has the upside due to Hillary's high negatives. He has the upside because of his ability to get independent voters, defected Republicans, young people, and high turnouts among urban voters. Okay, so Clinton leads McCain by 2% according to SurveyUSA. Obama is TIED with McCain by the same poll. Clinton loses to McCain in the Rasmussen poll. Obama wins in Ohio in this poll.

And it isn't wishful thinking to actually be competitive in a states that have Obama actually winning in a head to head matchup, especially states where Bush only won by 6,000 votes, and especially when very popular statewide elected officials like Claire McCaskill is backing him. I think these states are very much in play and it is far from wishful thinking. We can't put all of our eggs in Florida and Ohio baskets. That will get us exactly no where.