Results in Dem Primary for big key/swing states:
California - Hillary +8
New Jersey - Hillary +10
Ohio - Hillary +10
Florida - Hillary +17
Are you saying that Obama, or any Democrat is going to lose California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts in November?
Cause if you are, please provide exactly how you came to that conclusion.
As for Florida, do you really think that if they held their primary on or after Super Tuesday and both campaigns had competed vigorously the result would have been 17 points?
How about Michigan? The best HRC could do against, quite literally, nobody, was 10 points.
I'll give you Ohio, well except for the fact that it's been on the reddish side of purple for some time, so it'll be a tough slog no matter who is our candidate, which, BTW, isn't going to be HRC unless she can get at least a 15 - 20% win in PA, and even if she does, she then needs to cut Obama's 20 point lead in NC at least in half and win Indiana by well more than 10% and even then she'll STILL be behind in both the delegate count and popular vote.
I was responding to the earlier comment that Hillary has beaten Obama by large numbers in large and/or swing states.
As for your question about Florida, actually Hillary pushed for a revote and Obama balked so I guess we'll never be able to answer that question.
Your statement on Michigan is just silly, but thanks for giving me Ohio. I can't remember, but I think Ohio played a bit role in 2004....
"As for your question about Florida, actually Hillary pushed for a revote and Obama balked so I guess we'll never be able to answer that question."
Can you give a cite for this. I've been following these events closely and I have yet to see any stories indicating that Obama played any substantial role in quashing a FL revote. I am aware of a story indicating that the state party (including many Clinton supporters) ruled out a revote for logistical reasons having nothing to do with the positions of the candidates. I am aware that Obama was opposed to a proposed revote plan in MI that would have disqualified a demographic that would have skewed heavily for him -- Dems who voted in the Republican primary before they knew there would be a Dem contest and with no reason to believe that their voting in the Republican primary would disqualify them from ours. I am not however, aware of Obama actively working against a FL revote. Not saying your wrong, I'd just like to see the evidence if you have any.
In Michigan Obama's surrogates were effective in blocking a revote through the Michigan legislature.
In Florida, the Obama camp used legal arguments for not following through with a revote.
http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-lawye r-questions-michigan-re-vote-plan
That cite merely makes the assertion that Obama blocked revotes in FL without offering any details about what exactly he did to stop them from occuring. I've seen other more recent cites asserting that Obama did not oppose revotes in FL.
"Obama has yet to declare his support or opposition, although his campaign has raised a number of procedural and legal questions about the most recent proposal for an early June primary in Michigan. "
http://www.buffalonews.com/357/story/303 563.html
I guess we should ask does he support a revote or having the current votes stand? A lack of action on his part, as well as voicing various legal concerns sure give a big sign that he would prefer that the votes in Florida not count and they should not have a re-vote.
Fair enough, I suppose you could make that assumption. Can you honestly say that if Clinton had lost the unofficial election that she would not have stuck with her original support for the DNC sanctions and "prefer that the votes in Florida not count and they should not have a re-vote". It also appears that a revote in FL would have been impossible for logistical reasons even if Obama had supported it.
"A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it's simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the Party were to pay for it. Republican Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio refuses to even consider that option. Florida is finally moving to paper ballots, which is a good thing, but it means that at least 15 counties do not have the capacity to handle a major election before the June 10th DNC primary deadline."
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2008/03/breaking_florida_will_no t_hold.php
I guess we'll never know...
Is the commenter Polson really named Mark Penn?
Is the Clinton campaign ever going to stop this silly dissing of medium sized & small states? Go ahead, keep it up, but Hillary should sue her staff for political malpractice.
It's not about dissing small states, but I assume by your statement that you're saying big states aren't important?
Again, there is a lot of race left and Obama has yet to win a big state. Until he is the nominee, I'd hold off on the victory dance.
I guess Illinois is a "small state"? And Hillary did grow up in Park Ridge, IL after all - native daughter?
How do you define "win" in Texas? If you don't consider a delegate win a victory, then would you subtract Rush Limbaugh's Project Mayhem Republican crossover voters from Senator Clinton's totals?
(Using the same logic of Obama has to win California and New York in the Democratic Party primary) If Senator Clinton can't win a large number of smaller states in the primary whose electoral college total is greater than the big states and that are collectively critical for a Democratic win in November, does that not make her unable to win?
Oh, and don't forget Senator Clinton's massive 55 point blow out of Obama in Michigan. Wow - that had to be one of the hardest fought races ever! I can't believe Obama got zero votes. They must really, really hate him in Michigan. Maybe he should offer "Uncommitted" a spot on the ticket to help carry MI for the Dems in November.
Um, a win would be defined as who gets the most votes, right? Or would you prefer Obama to win the George W. Bush way? Lose the popular vote, but win by delegates?
I have no idea what you're saying about Michigan.
"Or would you prefer Obama to win the George W. Bush way? Lose the popular vote, but win by delegates?"
Wouldn't winning the Bush way be better than losing the Gore way?
Ironically, if all the caucus states had primaries instead, the projected popular vote lead for Obama would be 1.3 Million, instead of 750 Thousand.
Anyway, since Obama is winning EVERY metric, (except he is losing the states won by Hillary Clinton - she is winning among those states), then Senator Clinton being chosen by the superdeletates would be far more like the Supreme Court's choice for Bush over Gore, even though Gore won the popular vote, and upon recounting Florida, the electoral vote.
RE MI: I find it laughable that Clinton claims a huge victory in MI, and given her assertion of how the primary wins somehow predict GE performance, then clearly Obama should put "uncommitted" as his choice for VP, since next to Clinton, that's the candidate who did best in MI and would help Obama carry the state.
