View Story | 36 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
It's not the "big" states, and it's not the "most" states, it's the swing states that matter the most. However, you are not counting PA and FL which have lots o delegates. Also, I wouldn't call a 10% margin a swing state, per se.
by sunshineonthebay on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:48:12 PM PDT
by your rationale, Florida is no longer a "swing" state according to the 2004 election (Kerry lost by over 5%), recent trends (Crist's governorship) and post polls
If you count "swing states" as those that were within 5% in 2004, you still have to include Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Oregon in your calculus. But I never, ever hear Clinton backers mention those states as critical. Why is that?
"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 02:00:28 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Only counting big states is just as much bs as repeating the twice-as-many states meme. These are fine arguments over the nomination, but they mean didly squat when it comes to who can win the GE.
by sunshineonthebay on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:02:44 PM PDT
Perhaps we should stick with the best metric we have then - delegates! And forget all this other bunk.
Repeat after me - pledged delegates are our best indicator of the will of the people.
Also, Obama leads Clinton on every "who can win the General Election" poll that I've seen.
So ... case closed!
by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:05:02 PM PDT
However, it still doesn't tell us anything about the GE. You can score delegates from red states in primaries, but in a winner-take-all GE those states don't help you. I don't put a lot of faith in the polls. I believe the polls overestimate Obama's lead in the GE. People are vocal about their dislike of her, but I believe not everyone who say they "would" vote for him over McCain will actually bother to vote in Nov.
by sunshineonthebay on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:10:20 PM PDT
The underlying point of this diary is that no primary victory has any relation on the relative strength in the general election. Clinton's people would like us to believe that it does. But it's just obfuscation, and I'm tired of it.
No more bamboozling!
by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:12:45 PM PDT
The diarist is making a point that Obama's wins do mean something. I don't think either proves a win in Nov.
by sunshineonthebay on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:18:04 PM PDT
what I'm saying is that Clinton's attempts to cloud the issue by bringing "big states" into it are themselves facile, because the truth is that there are PLENTY of swing states and overall, Obama is doing as well or better in them.
Nothing "proves" a win in November, but the analysis does help blow Clinton and Rendell's point completely out of the water.
They need to stop using it. It's a nonsensical argument and doesn't hold up to the light.
by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:21:36 PM PDT
And I also think Obama needs to stop using the twice as many states argument because it is also bogus. We have no way of knowing at this point who is more likely to win in Nov.
by sunshineonthebay on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:22:48 PM PDT
and only in combination with the far more important fact that he HAS MORE DELEGATES, and to counter the claim that Clinton's states somehow are more important
If he were up 30-20 in states but behind in delegates, that would be something else. But he's not.
by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:26:35 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 36 comments