The elephant in the room

The seven states with the most electoral votes:
1.) California - 55 - Won by Hillary
2.) Texas - 34 - Won by Hillary
3.) New York - 31 - Won by Hillary
4.) Florida - 27 - Won by Hillary *
5.) Pennsylvania - 21 - Don't want to jinx it but let's just say it looks good for Hillary
6.) Illinois - 21 - Won by Barack
7.) Ohio - 20 - Won by Hillary

"To know me is to love me?"

Why can't Barack win the big states?

He outspends her 3-1 in PA and looks headed for defeat?

Here's a newsflash...there won't be any caucuses in November and if you take away caucuses...

* This is a real reason he's dodging the Florida and Michigan issue! He wouldn't have even mattered they campaigned there...the man can't win the big states!

Tags: Barack Obama, big states, Election, Hillary Clinton (all tags)



Re: The elephant in the room

So, when a talking point gets shot down because of its inherent stupidity, it just reappears months later as if nothing happened?  Evan Bayh would be proud.

by rfahey22 2008-04-22 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room
What hasn't been answered is this...
Why Can't he beat her in these big states???
It's a pretty simple question! Why can't he land the knockout blow?
by LDFan 2008-04-22 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

Does every boxing match end in a KO?

If there isn't a knockout, do the judges award the fight to the one who is trailing in points, because the other fighter "couldn't deliver the knockout blow?"

Frankly, he can't beat her in the big states because they are the states with the biggest institutional Democratic infrastructure.

The bigger question to me is, why couldn't Hillary win a primary season with all of the institutional infrastructure behind her?

by bawbie 2008-04-22 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

ok, this is the simple, real answer to the question this diary poses. And watch, it will be ignored. They don't want answers, they just wanna have a tantrum.

by SeanF 2008-04-22 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room
Edit the title of your idiotic diary.
This topic has been discussed way too many times for you to act like no one wants to touch this topic
by Pravin 2008-04-22 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

You know who else won California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, and Ohio? John McCain. Yup. He won the PRIMARY in those states and consequently, by your flawed logic, he shall win them in the general election.

by lizardbox 2008-04-22 11:42AM | 0 recs
Oh my god.

Everyone.  Panic.  We've lost California!

by McNasty 2008-04-22 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh my god.

For the record McCain takes California from Obama

by DTaylor 2008-04-22 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh my god.

Yup. If you say so.

by lizardbox 2008-04-22 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

I heard Mitt Romney was a shoe-in for Michigan.

by the mollusk 2008-04-22 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

So according to your logic Hillary would win every state Obama won.

by indydem99 2008-04-22 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

Don't deflect this on me. I wasn't the one contending that a win in a state in a primary equals a win in the general election

by lizardbox 2008-04-22 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

So your insinuating that since he didn't win these states in the primary he is going to lose them in the GE?

That is some fine logic Lou!

by clintonmccain 2008-04-22 11:43AM | 0 recs
"Bake him away, toys." n/t

by McNasty 2008-04-22 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

Great point.  President Kerry won all those states' primaries too.

by Blue Neponset 2008-04-22 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

Are you saying all those states that Obama won do not matter? According to your logic Hillary would win them too!

by indydem99 2008-04-22 12:53PM | 0 recs
Let's see.

She lost Texas. Obama will certainly win New York and California. Florida didn't hold a primary and I guess that leaves Ohio. I think I've got it about right. Carry on.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

Except she won Texas.

by VAAlex 2008-04-22 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

they think the GE will be a caucus, apparently.

by campskunk 2008-04-22 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

And you probably think the GE will also have superdelegates.

by Pravin 2008-04-22 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

And you think the GE is a popular vote?

by LandStander 2008-04-22 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

Um, the electoral vote is based on who won the popular vote in the state. So you kind of proved his point. It's not proportional and take all, so popular vote in the state is all that matters.

by VAAlex 2008-04-22 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

Yes and the majority of people in big states live in large cities and suburbs. Rural areas have less population. So you win the urban areas and you win the state.

by venician 2008-04-22 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

Not at all. Do I have to point out all the big cities in red states which Democrats routinely carry yet fail to subsequently carry the state?

by VAAlex 2008-04-22 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

   No she didn't. She lost Texas. Unless of course only one vote mattered...then I guess she did win TX..if you throw out the unfavorable results.
by southernman 2008-04-22 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

Sen. Clinton won Texas. es/results/state/#val=TX

What 'one' vote are you talking about? I'm talking about her 101,000 vote margin win in Texas.

by VAAlex 2008-04-22 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

   You simply threw out the caucus results....which ARE part of the system, even if you wish they weren't.

  Obama won more delegates in Texas...hence..he won Texas!! After all, that's what Clinton's campaign has claimed all that matters.... the delegates.

  By their own logic...they lost Texas.

by southernman 2008-04-22 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

I didn't throw out the caucus results because in order to attend a caucus you must have voted in the primary. So, it would be highly suspect to count a vote twice, and that's what counting the caucus would do.

Clinton won more votes in Texas. By any definition of democracy, she won Texas. If you want to argue that Obama won Texas thanks to a convoluted system, that's a fine argument on its own and quite legitimate. But don't say Obama 'won' Texas since the facts are not with you.

by VAAlex 2008-04-22 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

By the definition of OUR democracy, she LOST Texas. Not all democracies are one-person, one-vote. For example: America.

by LandStander 2008-04-22 12:11PM | 0 recs
No, he's right.

By his own contorted version of how things should have been done in Texas, Senator Clinton won.

by McNasty 2008-04-22 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: No, he's right.

By the popular vote count of Texas, which determines the state-certified winner, Sen. Clinton won. Please look up the Texas primary numbers quoted above. And it's how things did go in Texas.

by VAAlex 2008-04-22 12:18PM | 0 recs
Yes, you're right.

I'm looking at total delegates won, but by that definition, she's the official winner.  That's the kind of "loss" the Obama campaign will be glad to take.

by McNasty 2008-04-22 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: No, he's right.

Consider that the nomination is won by accumulating delegates, then answer this question...

If Obama lost the popular vote in every state, but won the most delegates in every state - who would have the most delegates?
This is not a trick question.

by LandStander 2008-04-22 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: No, he's right.

I'm not talking about anything other than who won Texas. And no amount of spinning is going to change the fact that more people voted for her.

by VAAlex 2008-04-22 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: No, he's right.

I don't see how it is "winning" when that "victory" actually hurt her chances of obtaining the nomination.

by LandStander 2008-04-22 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: No, he's right.

This isn't this complicated -- she won more votes. She achieved a greater percentage of votes than Obama. More people voted for her than voted for Obama. That is ALL I am saying. And nothing else. Let's just agree on that.

by VAAlex 2008-04-22 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: No, he's right.
Haha, ok. Deal.
But you must agree that Obama clearly won in Nevada! (kidding, of course!)
by LandStander 2008-04-22 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

I guess we have different definitions of democracy then. It's not contorted, simply different. I say she won because more people actually voted for her, you say he won because some contortioned system gave him the win. :: shrug :: Fair enough.

by VAAlex 2008-04-22 12:17PM | 0 recs
President Gore wants to speak to you.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

Can people stop troll-rating comments they don't agree with? It's not an 'agree' measure, it's a troll measure. Please don't sink to that level. I'm talking to you lockewasright.

by VAAlex 2008-04-22 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

Yeah, kind of like when Gore won the popular vote. Our elections have stupid rules, and these stupid rules determine the winner. Yes, they are stupid, but no, you don't get to change the rules.

by LandStander 2008-04-22 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

I'm not saying change the rules, I'm saying acknowledge who actually won.

by VAAlex 2008-04-22 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

Obama won the most delegates in Texas. Is that what we were talking about?

by LandStander 2008-04-22 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

No, we were talking about who actually received more votes.

by VAAlex 2008-04-22 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

But the amount of votes a candidate receives has nothing to do with winning the nomination.

by LandStander 2008-04-22 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

Who's talking about the nomination? I'm talking about Texas. She won more votes in Texas.

by VAAlex 2008-04-22 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

Actually no she didn't... the final tally isn't in until the Texas State Convention June 6-7.  

Wishing that something is true doesn't make it so.

by TxKat 2008-04-22 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

People get to vote again? I thought the final Texas state-certified total was already posted?

by VAAlex 2008-04-22 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

The state convention (for caucus-awarded delegates) operates like the county conventions.  It's all based on sign in.

by TxKat 2008-04-23 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

So these votes get added to the state-certified vote in which Clinton won?

by VAAlex 2008-04-24 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

The goal of this entire contest is to win the most delegates.
Imagine the primary was just one state and there are no Supers, and this state will send the delegates to the convention to choose the nominee. And let's pretend that only Hillary and Obama are on the ballot. Hillary wins 55% of the popular vote, Obama wins 45%. Due to the breakdown of delegates, Obama wins 100 delegates, and Hillary wins 99.
If this was the only contest, who just won the nomination?
Yes, Hillary won the popular vote in this hypothetical. But tell me, does it matter? Of course not, because the popular vote has NOTHING to do with winning the nomination.

Only Delegates Matter.

by LandStander 2008-04-22 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

Your hypothetical is irrelevant to the fact that more people voted for Hillary in Texas. Therefore, she won the state.

by VAAlex 2008-04-22 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.
But MORE Texan delegates will vote for Obama at the convention. So, at the convention (which is all that matters in the end), he will have more support from Texas than Clinton.
So why should I pretend Clinton won Texas?
by LandStander 2008-04-22 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

You should acknowledge the fact that more people voted for Clinton in Texas. You don't have to pretend anything, in fact. It's all right there in the numbers.

by VAAlex 2008-04-22 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see.

She only lost Texas caucus. GE is not a causus can not save you. He is just gaming the system winning useless states.

by indydem99 2008-04-22 12:55PM | 0 recs
Oh and why did he outspend her?

Hmmmm? She didn't have enough money!

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh and why did he outspend her?

Not to mention, she started this campaign with more money and power than anyone, and yet she lost states along the way.

by Pravin 2008-04-22 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh and why did he outspend her?

right - so he didn't have to spend all that money. She doesn't have as much as he does, so why spend so much? What would his state tally look like at the end of the day if he hadn't outspent her 3-1?

by Little Otter 2008-04-22 11:57AM | 0 recs
And this matters why?

What would it look like if the Clintons hadn't had 16 years of backroom political connections to draw on and favors to call in? Hillary was up by 19 in the polls a few weeks ago. Let's see how it turns out. Nobody is going to accept the political spin from the Hillary camp, which I'm encouraged to hear is all over the place now, that she was outspent. She has to win big today or it's over. I think she'll do fine. She started out with so many advantages in PA. It would be a really hard state for her to lose.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: And this matters why?

In what poll was Clinton ever up by 19 in Pennsylvania?  She was up by an average of 9 point through the month of February, averaging across polls, by an average of 12 through the Month of March, and by an average of 7 through April so far.

Please show us the polls that show her up by 19.  This is a trick of the Obama campaign to raise expectations on her.

by mtnspirit 2008-04-22 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: And this matters why?

Jerome has slightly different numbers in his excellent post this morning:

February: 47.8 - 38.3, a 9.5% margin for Clinton
March: 51.3 - 38.4, a 12.9% margin for Clinton
April: 45 - 38.6, a 6.4% margin for Clinton
(sorry, don't know how to block quotes)

by mtnspirit 2008-04-22 01:04PM | 0 recs
by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Here ya go.

That poll is a single poll and an outlier.  Shall we also say that Barack Obama is now going to win by one or two points?  There have been a couple of polls in PA recently to make that suggestion as well.

IMHO, PA is going to be closer than people think.  Most people are projecting that the undecideds will break heavily for HRC, but I predict it will go the other way, and be a spread of 4-5 points.  

(No, that's not good news for my candidate)

by mtnspirit 2008-04-22 01:42PM | 0 recs
If it's 4 to 5 it's all over.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 01:45PM | 0 recs
So about that trick of the Obama campaign?

She was up by 19. Let's see where this ends up. She really needs to win by at least that to be competitive going forward, though the conventional wisdom keeps moving downward so that she now probably only needs double digits.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

Obama also outspent Clinton by 4 to 1 in Ohio & Texas.

This is a hopeless case.

The Liberal base within our party need this PAIN every time.

They never have & never will understand majority of american voters.

by libdemusa 2008-04-22 11:46AM | 0 recs
The elephant in the Clinto campaign

Senator Casey and all those Red state Democrats endorsing Obama are the Liberal base? If the majority were for Hillary she would be the nominee. If she can't manage her campaign, her finances and beat Obama she doesn't get to be the candidate. That's how these primaries work.

You can make up whatever contorted logic you want to explain her failure to leverage the massive advantages she started with to gain the nomination but it seems she is not as ready as she would like us to believe. PA provided an ideal situation for her to crush Obama. Obama has certainly won in landslides when the demographics worked in his favor. But it looks like she will fail at getting the kind of win she needed. Excuses don't count. Results do.

by hankg 2008-04-22 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

he's gonna deputize indiana as a big state, and outspend her there. the harder he tries, the worse he looks.

by campskunk 2008-04-22 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

yeah, Fred Thompson figured out a long time ago that trying is for suckers.

by the mollusk 2008-04-22 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

or you could say, the harder he tries, the more he cuts into the enormous leads Clinton starts out with in these states.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-04-22 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

North Carolina is a bigger state than Indiana.

But he won't mention it BECAUSE ITS FUCKING STUPID

Nobody gives a shit whether one candidate wins the big states or the small states, the only thing that matters is who wins the most delegates.

by bawbie 2008-04-22 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

You are so right. I'm sure he'll concede tonight.

See, isn't it fun posting the same amazingly stupid fucktard comments over and over?

by SeanF 2008-04-22 12:05PM | 0 recs
downticket races

in OH, PA, TX, FL, MO - Clinton performed much better outside of the cities, The cities will stay D whoever is on the top of the ticket, its the suburbs and rural areas where we can pick up congressional seats. Since Hillary is stronger there it is something to take into account with the "Big states" especially in Ohio and PA.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-22 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

YAWN,   this is only NOW an issue because HRC made it campain policy to drive down her negatives by raising Obamas.

This policy is at least 4 weeks old now, which is why wise senators encourage this to end last month.

by GeorgeP922 2008-04-22 11:52AM | 0 recs
Newsflash to you

   CA hasn't voted GOP since 1988

  Texas hasn't voted Democratic for a couple of decades.

  New York hasn't voted GOP since 1984

  PA hasn't voted GOP since  1988

  IL hasn't voted GOP since 1988

  Not to mention that, according to your own logic, Hillary will lose 86 electoral votes of states that Obama won and that Democrats win in most general elections. Not to mention bellweathers like Missouri and Iowa.

  No elephant in this room...just a big load of bulls***.

  Bush lost NH to McCain...still won it in 2000. Gore swept all primaries..didn't mean squat for his general election strength.

  Primaries do not indicate general election strength. Nothing in our political history supports your argument...NOTHING!!

by southernman 2008-04-22 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Newsflash to you

Thanks for pointing out how recently those states voted GOP for prez. You do realize that there have only been 4 presidential elections since 1988, and Democrats won the White House in 50% of those elections, and 100% of the Democratic winners were named Clinton.

by LakersFan 2008-04-22 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsflash to you nice. So b/c Bill won there...Hillary will, but Obama won't.

  Your logic is just absurd and not supported by any rational fact.

by southernman 2008-04-22 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsflash to you

Did I say Obama or Clinton will or won't win in those states? No, I simply pointed out that 1988 wasn't that long ago in Presidential elections.

by LakersFan 2008-04-22 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsflash to you

   Clinton is saying that. So are her advocates. And it's nonsense and not supported by any rational fact.
by southernman 2008-04-22 10:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsflash to you

I'm not Clinton. But I'll take confusing me with her as a compliment. She's awfully smart.

by LakersFan 2008-04-22 10:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

Obama has won more states, has more pledged delegates, has won more of the popular vote.  By all the metrics Obama is winning.

by Spanky 2008-04-22 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

You might have some difficulty coming up with the "rules" that show that winning the primary is based on winning big states.

There is only one thing that matters and that is delegates. Today 158 are up for grabs and it looks like Clinton will win in PA by 10 pts and pick up about 10 delegates, cutting Obama's lead of 165 down to about 155.

And in two weeks, after NC, that 155 will likely be increased to 170 or more.

The real problem for Clinton is that the superdelegates have been breaking for Obama. Since 2/17, he has gained support from 70, while Clinton has gained support from less than 30.

So we should expect the next two weeks to have Clinton's lead in supers (24) to drop down to the mid teens. (It was 97 in January.)

Although it may seem unfair, the size of the states won, just like the electoral college, is probably not going to have much influence on the supers.

Patrick Bradish

by PatrickBradish 2008-04-22 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

What happened to Hillary's big knock out on Super Tuesday??

by hootie4170 2008-04-22 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

Da rulz > Clinton.

Sorry, friends but he is winning/has won by the rules that were set out at the beginning. It's like that sometimes. Sometimes you disagree with the rules, but since you agreed to play with them, there isn't anything you can do.

by Darknesse 2008-04-22 12:12PM | 0 recs
No, no, change the rules!

See: Michigan, Florida, (Texas).

by McNasty 2008-04-22 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

I could not agree with you more.
I would hope that Hillary Clinton, by virtue of her husband's experiences in Democratic presidential primaries, was intimately familiar with all of these rules long before the current contest began.

Had she desired to change these (admittedly stupid) rules, perhaps her and her husband may have been able to use their considerable clout within the Party to do so BEFORE this contest began. They did not.

by LandStander 2008-04-22 12:19PM | 0 recs
Big states? Big states?

If we want to be really stupid about this...

And no, she can't catch him in this metric, either.

2295242.25 - Square miles (total of Obama states)

804580 - Square miles (total of Clinton states)

by darthstar 2008-04-22 12:16PM | 0 recs
That was my first post here at mydd, btw...

I'm a late bloomer ;)

by darthstar 2008-04-22 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

Alaska and Texas are tought to beat for land area.

by PatrickBradish 2008-04-22 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

Why is every pro-Clinton diary on this site feel like the old saying "Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining".

Are these people who write these things really that out of touch or do they secretly know how full of shit they are?

By the logic put forth here - McCain won all the big states in the primary therefore he is going to win them in the general.  Especially California and New York.

by FinneganOregon 2008-04-22 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

Simple answer, she scrapes by in heavily Dem states because of entrenched Democratic machines, led by Clinton-era appointees, that turn out votes for her. In areas without such a machine, Obama wins.

The machine will not go Republican in November. It will work for Obama just like it's worked for Hillary in the primaries.

by amiches 2008-04-22 12:56PM | 0 recs
Agree, but hate this argument

It's saying some states matter and some don't.

But caucuses - we really have to do something about caucuses.

by catfish1 2008-04-22 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The elephant in the room

Are you thinking superdelegates are reading this post and you're helping them make their decision? Because I can't think of ANY other reason for posting this kind of thing over and over. It isn't the way primaries are normally decided so unless SDs are reading this and going "man, I never thought of it that way" this post does nothing at all.

by Becky G 2008-04-22 01:06PM | 0 recs
Truly Sad

By reading these post the one obvious thing - it has truly turned into trench warfare.  Let's face facts, neither Clinton or Obama has been able to close the deal.

One can ask- what  with  Clinton's huge brand recognition, a huge Super Del. lead before the primary season even got started, presumption that she was going to win it by Super Tuesday - why hasn't she closed the deal? Also one can ask - after tying it up on Super Tuesday and then winning 14 in a row and out raising the Clinton campaign why hasn't Obama closed the deal?

There are numerous reasons in both cases, none of which matter. We will end todays primary still with Clinton behind Obama in delegates and probably closer in the popular vote. Result we will go one to Indiana and North Carolina primaries and the Guam Caucuses and probably all the way to June.

One of these two candidates is going to be the Democratic nominee. Right now the math favors Obama, however, we all know the Supers remaining could break either way. They are bound by nothing more than their own thoughts.

We can also argue until the moon turns blue whether the Democratic primary system is flawed or not, but it won't change anything. When this all started it was the system to which both candidates signed on - this includes the MI and FL mess.

Personally I think with this thing now 90% over we really need to start talking about how we are going to come together as a party no matter who the nominee. So we don't have four to eight more years of Republican mismanagement. That is, unless all anyone cares about is that their candidate gets the nomination and if they don't they will vote for Mccain.

I suggest if that is your position you were not voting on issues in the first place. You are voting personality, or some warped belief that it's someone's turn to be President.

Finally I will also remind you should McCain take the White House because you were married to your candidate and not your beliefs. No coming back on this blog and whining about the Iraq war, the terrible economy, The Supreme Court going further to the right, Roe V Wade being overturned etc etc.

by jsfox 2008-04-22 01:30PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads