Daily Kos

View Story | 36 comments

  •  ummm actually (0+ / 0-)

    If Kerry had won Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa in '04, the Dems would have won the election.

    Clinton is currently trailing McCain in CO and IA, while Obama is comfortably ahead in both states and both are ahead in NM.

    To tell you the truth, I'd love to have an election where we could win WITHOUT Florida or Ohio (not that we shouldn't compete our hearts out for that).  Obama gives us that option.  Clinton doesn't.

    Anyway, the point is that Clinton is including California, New York, and Texas in her "big state" argument, which simply doesn't hold water when you're looking at November.

    "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." --Dan Quayle

    by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:11:13 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I agree that both (0+ / 0-)

      could win CA and NY and neither will win TX. What worries me is the blue collar vote in the rust belt states. They are people who have gone Republican in the past. My ideal solution to the problem would be for Obama to find a more effective voice in connecting with their economic concerns.

      by Richard Lyon on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:33:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bayh (0+ / 0-)

        If he chooses Bayh (a Hillary supporter, but not a jerk about it) as his VP, it helps immensely with rust-state voters, in particular neighboring states Pennsylvania and Michigan, as well as in Indiana!  The result would be a slam-dunk November victory for the Democrats.

        "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." --Dan Quayle

        by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:43:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 36 comments