Hillary : A Winner Where It Counts ?

[kentuck]

First of all, I have not endorsed either Hillary or Obama. I have posted as a devil's advocate for both of them. However, should we consider that some of the states that Obama is winning in caucuses in this race will most likely go Republican in November? How much weight do we really want to give to Idaho, North Dakota, and Nebraska? Are they really as important in the big picture as California, New York, and New Jersey, for example? Hillary won those states where it will count in the general election. Just saying...:-)

[RL3AO]

1. I'll give you California,

but NY and NJ? She better have won those.

[chimpymustgo]

2. You're making an excellent point.

I'm undecided personally. And voting tomorrow.

[MrsT]

3. No one in their right mind would think that Obama would lose New York, New Jersey or

California.

[RL3AO]

5. Yeah. Just like Obama winning Illinois was a shock.

[Straight Shooter]

24. Hillary winning Arkansas was quite a shock, also.

;)

[kentuck]

7. That may be true...

But, Hillary has already won them. Just saying...:-)

[SoxFan]

Hillary wins in states where...

...there is a strong Democratic machine. Obama wins in places where the Democratic Party is either relatively weak (North Dakota, Kansas) or is less thuggish in nature (Delaware, Washington State).

[NJSecularist]

4. Obama isn't losing New York, New Jersey and California

in the general election. Neither is Hillary.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. a very weighty issue here and thank you for bringing it to our attention

[NJSecularist]

10. This is no "weighty" issue

It's a lightweight issue and it is being dismissed as such. Neither Democrat who is nominated will face any threat of losing New York, California or New Jersey.

[Occam Bandage]

8. Do you really think CA, NY, and NJ will vote for McCain over Obama?

[kentuck]

13. No, but I doubt that he will win...

Idaho, Utah, or Nebraska in the general election. Maybe we should keep these "victories" in perspective is all I am saying...

[Occam Bandage]

17. I also doubt he'll win those, but that isn't the topic of the OP. OP is claiming

that those victories "count," when in reality CA, NJ, and NY are a foregone conclusion, as are IA, UT, and NE. Now, I do think he'll have a shot at flipping GA, MO, and VA, but that's just me.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. I think he can flip VA and certainly MO

Ohio is where the money is. If he flips one of those and carries Ohio it's a Dem president, period.

[Arugula Latte]

27. He can also get former-red-now-purple states like Colorado, possibly Arizona

I see him taking Missouri, as well.

[JackORoses]

25. he may not win the whole state, but his coattails can get Congressmen elected there

[KittyWampus]

9. she didn't win by very big margins, did she? Obama had ONE week and stretched resources.

[rodeodance]

16. as your side so many times has said--a win is a win.

[faithfulcitizen]

11. Obama, while being very progressive brings in more independents. It's just that simple.

:hi:

[SteppingRazor]

12. I think Hillary's blue state wins are just as meaningful Obama's red state ones...

or just as meaningless, depending on your perspective. What matters, of course, are the swing states -- the southwest, the Ohio Valley, the Great Lakes states, etc. And, really, I think either of our candidates will clean up in most of these areas. One advantage Obama may have is in the perception that he makes red states in the South competitive -- I don't know that it's true, but even the perception will force McCain to spend money in places he shouldn't have to.

[Armstead]

14. Either one would likely win the Blue states

It is an unknown whether Obama could carry Red States any more than Hillary, but if he ups the odds, then it is a good thing.

[BeyondGeography]

15. The other way to look at it is she wins where we have always won

and he expands our opportunities.

The red state wins shouldn't be minimized because he has the potential to help down-ticket where we need to hold onto valuable Senate and congressional seats. He helps in hostile ground, she hurts. Also, don't overlook the weakness she has shown in states that are either marginally blue or winnable, like Colorado, Minnesota, Washington and, tomorrow, Virginia. I've also seen polling where Obama does 11 points better than her against McCain in Iowa.

HRC's supporters are making the implausible argument that it's wrong to assume the base will automatically fall in line in the big states for Obama. It's far more likely that the antiwar, youth and independent vote that he has been turning out will not show up for her in November.

Also, McCain beats her 57-39 among men in the latest CNN poll. That suggests she'll have real trouble expanding our base everywhere.

[mohc]

18. The real question

Is how much of vote for one would transfer to the other in the general election. The reason why some look past victories in NY, NJ, CA, etc. is that most voters for the eventual loser of the nomination will vote for the eventual winner in November in these states, certainly in numbers large enough to overcome the smaller Republican electorate in these states. However, in the red and swing states, this is unlikely to be the case. The fact that Obama seems to be bringing in new voters, and is appealing more to independents and disaffected Republicans, seems to suggest less of his vote would transfer to Hillary than the other way around.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Axiomatic: Where Hillary wins, it counts; where she doesn't, it doesn't count

:-)

Of course, one could turn the argument around very easily: there's no way NY, NJ, or CA will go GOP in the general, so don't those states actually count very little from the perspective of winning the general? Should it be more a question of who can bring home swing states?

Moreover, Hillary seems to be placing great stock in the Texas primary. We know very well that Texas will go GOP in the general, so why should that state "count" according to the logic of your argument? Ditto Tennessee. Ditto Arkansas. Ditto Arizona, if McCain is the nominee.

So, what are the states that count? MA? NY? NJ? CA? FL, where there was no organized campaigning? The point starts to fall apart. Maybe after Ohio I'll consider your argument, Until then, your point doesn't really make much sense.

[kentuck]

20. As great as Obama did in South Carolina...?

Do you think he can win that state in the general election? That would be great because it might also lead to the defeat of Lindsey Graham, the McCain brown-noser. I'm not saying it is impossible. That is what makes this race so exciting and unpredictable.

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. No, but so what?

He might flip Virginia. He might carry Missouri.

Listen, your argument is silly. The way to look at it is like this:

Neither the obvious Dem states (NY, CA, NJ, MA) nor the obvious GOP states (ID, UT, SC) will count very much in the general. We all know where they're going. The money is in the swing states. Who can bring home voters there? To the extent that Obama has performed well in Red States, it could be concluded that he will do better in swing states. Clinton has also done alright in some red states (TN, AR), so the conclusion cuts both ways.

But determining that Obama's red state victories mean NOTHING, and Hillary's blue state victories mean a lot is just silly.

[bowens43]

23. Comparing the primaries to the general election is ridiculous.

[smartvoter]

26. Apples and oranges (primaries vs general). nt

[crawfish]

28. Great. She'll win where Democrats always win...

and we'll lose the general election in all the other states.

AGAIN.

Which states don't matter, again?

[kentuck]

29. I think this gets to the heart of the race...

Can Obama help us pull in more states and more seats in Congress than Hillary? Hillary beats Obama in the states that Democrats normally win but will she help us expand our base? That is for the voters to decide.