Do big states prove electability?

Well... here is another facet to the general election... It looks like uber-conservative Bob Barr (former U.S. Representative who was part of the move to impeach Clinton) is getting into the race as a Libertarian. He has announced a presidential exploratory committee.

It will most certainly hurt McCain, but as for helping either Obama or Clinton... it most likely depends on the state.

One thing for sure, it will put to rest the idea that the long-term Democratic primary will benefit McCain... because McCain will have to focus on Barr who is no minor league player.

BALONEY

This argument is old and illogical.

Just because Clinton has a slight edge in 2 of the states does not mean that the states wouldn't support Obama if her were the nominee.

ALWAYS examine all the logic in arguments that try to portray Hillary as the 'logical' choice. You will invariably find that the arguments are illogical.

Hillary, no matter how feeble the argument, picks the one area that she is either leading or at least not losing and says IT is the most important factor.

Get over it Clinton. We DON'T want you in the WHITEHOUSE.

GO AWAY

Rendell is right when he says “No Democrat can win the Electoral College without carrying three of the four big states – Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan,” If the Democrats win either Ohio or Florida, then I believe they will have clinched the election, whereas the Republicans MUST win both Ohio and Florida to win the election. However, winning big states does NOT mean you will necessarily win the election as Kerry won California, New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois, and still lost by a significant amount both in the popular vote and the electoral vote. Ohio and Florida are the KEY states both parties must pour their resources into.

Daniel P.: You are on the same page as me on this, except for who the Dem nominee is will play differently in Ohio and Pa. I have been following these two states very close for months and think Hillary wins both and Obama loses them. Another thing important to look at is the EC votes and how these are likely to be won by the different match ups.

Why don't people realise that Hillary Clinton, and her campaign are completely divorced from reality?The longer this goes on the larger their lunacy becomes. Recently saying that, you can only go back to 2005, (when Obama joined the senate) to determine who spoke out against the war first. Then we find out Obama was ahead of her by 8 weeks even on those newly made up standards. Whining that she is being "out spent" in advertising. Then we find out she has enough money to do just as Mitt Romney has done. Why should she go to her blue collar workers to ask for campaign contributions, when they have made 109 million dollars since Bill and she, left the Whitehouse? Who can better afford to fund her? She should put her money where her mouth is, like Romney did. Hillary could at LEAST pay off her vendors. What a DEADBEAT! Anyone can see by her actions just how much she cares about the poor. No wonder she did not want to release her tax returns! It has ALWAYS been about the POWER. That is all any Clinton cares about. Period. How they get it does not matter.

I am always amazed how the press say that Hillary won Michigan. She did not win. There was no race there. She did set herself up so that she could say she "won" and confuse the issue. However, the press seems to have continued to parrot what she says which is not true. At best the press might say she "won" in Michigan and then explain that there was actually no contest there. Please let's get the facts straight reporters - do your job, you are not parrots. This is a democracy - remember?

Well said Martha Davidson.

This is basically an argument between two different potential Democratic coalitions - There is the traditional one (Clinton/Rendell) in which coastal and northern urbanites seek enough white working class voters in the Northeast, Great Lakes and edges of the south to go three yards over the electoral college line.

This strategy hasn't worked so well in recent years (but is looking up this time due to Iraq and the economy,.) On the other hand, an alternative in which we risk losing more of our traditional swingable adjuncts, while trying to pass into previously-unfamiliar quasi-libertarian and populist (in the traditional sense) types, particularly in the West and upper midwest/ great plains states, who have become more willing to look our way with the right guy (Obama/Casey.)

Basically, Hillary's argument to her fellow Dems is: let's approach the map the EXACT same way we have in the previous two elections, despite the fact that, you know, things didn't work out so well with that approach.

Would millions of people show up at the polls and voted if there were no contests. Hillary won both Michigan and Florida. Barack Obama removed his name in Michigan. His handlers want to spit the votes 50-50. This is robbery because Hillary won by a large margin. She has proved her electibility by winning all the big important states and she will win PA too. Go Hillary!

Imagine this... Bill Clinton gets on national TV and claims he never had sex with...

Then he tells a congessional/legal panel that he needs to know what the meaning of is is...

Fast forward... HC fights to the bitter end..

Now imagine HC with BC and CC at her side she's quitting for the good of the party...

The arguments of rendell and casy show it is LONG BEYOND TIME FOR OBAMA TO CEDE AND FOLD INTO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN FOR THE GOOD OF THE PARTY IN THE FALL. This is why the Obamites floated the 'Hilary must end' crap weeks ago. The narcissism of the campaign and the people behind it will cost us the race in the fall unless they do so.

Bottom line - if Obama wins the nomination and loses the general - there will be no one to blame but Obama, big media, and Obama's naive and blind supporters. Of course, when he does lose, they'll no doubt figure out a way to blame Hillary. Obama is the weaker candidate against McCain - period.

I think it is a joke that we should have a democratic nominee who has not won California, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida, or Michigan.

Hillary won ALL of those states by 10% points or more. Big states have diverse communities.

It's ridiculous to have republican/small states decide a democratic nominee.

This farce needs to end now. Let's be rational, people. Idaho, Wyoming, Mississippi, South/North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Montana cannot determine our nominee. Obama must end his campaign.

Golden oldie...Obama is winning.

What happens if Clinton gets the nomination and the Obama, Republican and independent voters in those big states turn out in droves to prevent the perpetuation of the US Presidency as a family dynasty?

Hey UM, April 6, 7:06pm

It's laughable that you claim victory for Clinton in PA by 10% or more--it has NOT YET VOTED! She won CA by 9 points, not 10% or more. She did NOT win MI--Obama was not on the ballot. FL's primary results are flawd; note that Obama has consistently overcome huge deficits or at least narrow ed them substantially after campaigning in a state. E.g., in PA he was down over 20 -26 points just last month, and now he's down about 6 points or even up 2 points, depending on the polls.

If you dismiss small states and red states, which the Clinton campaign also did after her Feb losses, why is she now back to saying all voters must be heard, i.e., including MT, SD, WV, IN, NC, Guam? So, their voices count after all?

Well, sure they do, in so far as the states award delegates, and it's the delegates who select the nominee at the convention: those are the rules. Obama did NOT make them up; he simply competed according to them.

BTW, Obama will win CA & NY in the general election. PA has voted Democratic in the last 4 presidential elections, whereas FL has voted Republican in 3 of the last 4.

Couple that information with the delegate math, and you're right that this is a farce: Clinton's chance of winning the pledged delegate race is negligible, and the only scenario that grants her the nomination requires the rejection of the voters' choice by the superdelegates, which would be undemocratic and destructive. Here's a delegate calculator:
http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/

Use facts when you make assertions if you want any credibility.

Hey UM, April 6, 7:06pm

It's laughable that you claim victory for Clinton in PA by 10% or more--it has NOT YET VOTED! She won CA by 9 points, not 10% or more. She did NOT win MI--Obama was not on the ballot. FL's primary results are flawed; note that Obama has consistently overcome huge deficits or at least narrow ed them substantially after campaigning in a state. E.g., in PA he was down over 20 -26 points just last month, and now he's down about 6 points or even up 2 points, depending on the polls.

If you dismiss small states and red states, which the Clinton campaign also did after her Feb losses, why is she now back to saying all voters must be heard, i.e., including MT, SD, WV, IN, NC, Guam? So, their voices count after all?

Well, sure they do, in so far as the states award delegates, and it's the delegates who select the nominee at the convention: those are the rules. Obama did NOT make them up; he simply competed according to them.

BTW, Obama will win CA & NY in the general election. PA has voted Democratic in the last 4 presidential elections, whereas FL has voted Republican in 3 of the last 4.

Couple that information with the delegate math, and you're right that this is a farce: Clinton's chance of winning the pledged delegate race is negligible, and the only scenario that grants her the nomination requires the rejection of the voters' choice by the superdelegates, which would be undemocratic and destructive. Here's a delegate calculator:
http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/

Use facts when you make assertions if you want any credibility.

Debunking the Clinton Campaign's 2 Biggest arguments:

1) Hillary's 'wins' in Michigan and Florida should count

Before the first vote was cast in Iowa, residents of both states knew that in terms of seating delegates at the convention, their votes would not count. Not only did the voters know this, but so did the candidates which is why they did not campaign in states whose votes 'would not count'.

If you ask me, what better way to discourage 'cheating' by other states in the future, than by assigning a grade of 0 to states that opt to break the rules.

As far as disenfranchisement goes, voters in both states will have their voices heard in November, and they should probably consider also voting against the state-level politicians who gambled away their primary votes in the first place.

2) If you can't win the big states, you can't win the General Election.

2 Words for you...Bull Crap!Voters in CA, NY, OH, etc expressed their preference (as did voters in all the other states), but I find it hard to believe that those who did not support Obama during the Primary season wouldn't rally behind him in November.

Considering how closely Obama and Clinton stand on most issues, I find it hard to believe that REAL Democrats woudn't back the nominee over McCain in November. And any supporters who can't get over their hurt feelings before November and pull the lever for their party's nominee, should really do some soul searching!

Stop the whining!!
Democrats 2008!

No.

Define 'winning' GK--the fake caucus system designed to prevent a McGovern style candidate (ala John Edwards?) from ever again being the candidate? by the way--the caucuses are profoundly undemocratic--voting while your boss sees what you do--while the media and neighbors see what you do?
Worse still is all the repugs voting obama up so we can LOSE in the Fall. Obama knows this. He should bow out NOW/

If Obama did like Clinton and only focused on big states he would have done better in those states. Obama is in the lead because he wants to represent all Americans. Thats also great for Democrats running for other offices. .

Barr will have no influence. He's not a factor. A handful of Paul supporters at best. Nader will affect the lib/demo vote far more. Clinton supporters hate Obama and it will be impossible for many of them to vote for him. Obama's supporters wish to bury Clinton, not elect her. Meanwhile, real Americans, especially the men, will find it impossible to vote for either liberal democrat. Watch the landslide if Rice runs.

"Obama is in the lead because he wants to represent all Americans. Thats also great for Democrats running for other offices. ."
This is funny! He wants to represent all Americans, except MI and FL. He basically wants to steal an election based on alienation and you people are fine with it. Democracy? Give me a break! You're so afraid of democracy that you're willing to disenfranchise millions of voters because they didn't choose YOUR candidate. It's not about Obama or Clinton. This is about being fair. If he wins this way we will ALL be the worse off for it.

"Obama is in the lead because he wants to represent all Americans. Thats also great for Democrats running for other offices. ."
This is funny! He wants to represent all Americans, except MI and FL. He basically wants to steal an election based on alienation and you people are fine with it. Democracy? Give me a break! You're so afraid of democracy that you're willing to disenfranchise millions of voters because they didn't choose YOUR candidate. It's not about Obama or Clinton. This is about being fair. If he wins this way we will ALL be the worse off for it.