The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« Petraeus Picked to Lead CentCom -- but What About the 190,000 Missing Weapons? | Main | Olbermann's Hillary Derangement Syndrome Takes Him Over the Top and Right Across the Line (Updated) »

April 25, 2008



She's taken "every swing state" only if Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota, and Virginia aren't swing states. Each of those is in play to varying degrees in the general election, and Obama outperforms Hillary in GE polls in all of those states except Missouri. He also out-polls her in Michigan.

As I've said time and again, Democratic primary wins don't automatically equate with better GE performance in that state.


I should add New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada to Michigan in the list of states that Hillary won (in the sense of more votes cast) that are in play in the fall, but that Obama actually polls better in for the fall.

To review:

Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, and Florida (90 EV): better for Hillary.

Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, and Virginia (98 EV): better for Obama.

Every other state: solid red or blue, barring a blowout win where they don't matter anyway.

Those numbers should not be taken to mean that Obama is 8 EVs better than Hillary in the GE. Everything is a probability. In some states the Obama/Hillary gaps are small and others they are large. Some of those states lean red and others lean blue. The point is just that this idea that Hillary has won the states that "matter" or the states that "a Democrat needs to win", just doesn't hold any water. The electoral puzzle is different for the two candidates, and an analysis based solely on primary wins doesn't reveal much.

Sparky Duck

One word, though you never know which one is being payed attention too, but Scoreboard


Hillary is not winning. The race is about delegates.

She won Pennsylvania because it was a closed primary. Obama does better than she does with independents and has as good or better a chance of carrying the state from McCain in a general election.

In fact, in Pennsylvania Obama cut into Clinton's margin with registered Democratic voters compared to Ohio. Obama is actually making inroads in her support.


Keep telling yourselves that, Xensen and Adam, if that's what you want to believe. Just bear in mind that a substantial number of your fellow Dems see things differently.

This race is not 'about delegates' at this point, but is increasingly about something quite different.


Well, the Clinton campaign thought it was about delegates, until, of course, it wasn't:

But anyway, I'm honestly unsure what you are implying the race *is* about. Are you implying that the race is no longer really about who wins? If so, then what is the purpose of the race continuing? I mean these as serious questions.


Demozel, you certainly do see things differently. But I can't quite tell what you are taking issue with.

Do you mean you don't believe that Pennsylvania was a closed primary? That Obama got a higher percentage of registered Dems there than in Ohio? That Obama does better with independent voters than Clinton does? That the number of delegates a candidate receives is not how the party's nominee is chosen? Or what?

The comments to this entry are closed.