I’m gonna keep this short and sweet. There is a talking point being floated by the Clinton campaign that Tim Russert called "a strong argument" today. It’s meant to be a justification for the superdelegates to overturn the will of the people and hand the nomination to Hillary even if Obama wins among elected pledged delegates. Please recommend this diary if you agree with me that it is actually an incredibly flawed argument.
Here’s a conversation that occurred today on Meet the Press between Tim Russert and PA Gov. Ed Rendell.
TIM- Governor, at the end of all those votes, if Barack Obama still had more elected delegates, would you then agree that he deserves the nomination?
GOV RENDELL - Not if Hillary Clinton wins Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida back to back to back to back to back.
The idea is that obviously because Hillary won the democratic primaries in these states, then obviously she will win them in the general election and thus be able to trounce John McCain.
The reason why this talking point is flawed is because winning a democratic primary is not the same as winning a general election in that same state. Why? Because in a general election, democrats, independents, and republicans all vote. I might believe Governor Rendell if he had polls to back up what he is saying, but he doesn’t. If you look at the general election matchups taken by Survey USA in these states within the last couple days, Hillary does better in Pennsylvania and Florida (Obama has campaigned in neither), Obama does better in Texas and Michigan, and they do the same in Ohio.
How can this be?
IT’S THE INDEPENDENTS, STUPID!
Despite Hillary’s 9 point victory over Obama in Ohio, he actually won by 9 points among independents who decided to vote. Unless this thing turns extremely ugly, democrats will probably support the nominee, regardless of who it is. The key test in determining who is the stronger general election candidate is who can attract more independent voters. I don’t think there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that Barack Obama has dominated among independents so far in this process.
Independents are the reason Obama performs just as well as Hillary in general election polls in these big swing states that she has "won."
Independents are the reason Obama performs much stronger than Hillary in general election polls in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, New Hampshire and many others.
Independents are the reason that Obama is the stronger general election candidate and has a much greater potential than Hillary Clinton does for an electoral thrashing of John McCain.
Please do not let anyone claim that Hillary Clinton has performed stronger in the democratic primaries in these states and therefore she is the stronger general election candidate. It’s simply not true.