In arguing that popular vote should be the metric used to determine the democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton and her supporters point to the illegitimate and un-democratic nature of caucuses as one reason why. As we all know, Obama has destroyed Clinton in caucus states, racking up huge margins of victory in the process. Yet, for Clinton, Obama's strength caucus states actually proves her argument that Obama is un-electable, contending that Obama is winning the pledged delegate count primarily because of his wins in "illegitimate" caucus states, states which are predominantly red-states anyway.
To test Clinton's theory, I want to examine 2 questions: (1) are caucus states mostly red-states, as Clinton supports argue? (2) in recent polling, how is Obama faring against McCain in general election match-ups in caucus states? And how is he doing compared to Clinton?
The answers to the two questions, I'd argue, completely undermine Clinton's critique of caucus states and her contention that Obama is un-electable. In fact, Obama's strength in caucus states actually may show that he is more electable than Hillary Clinton. Analysis after the fold.
Read More