Of course math is what Obama supporters like to use. (It is after all, about delegates). But in addition to the "popular vote" argument, Clinton has been saying she wins the "big states" a Democrat needs to win in November. But lost in this argument is a distinct demographic...The "Big Cities"...
Take a look at 2004...
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Kerry Won the Big cities. New York. Philadelphia. Etc. (The same large cities Obama won/will win in PA/IN etc.
Bush won "rural areas" (the same areas Clinton wins)
But when Clinton raises the "big states" argument, I never hear any of the "talking heads" raise the "Big City" issue....
If rural areas are Republican areas (evidenced by the map), and Clinton cannot win the large cities, how can she expect to them win in November against McCain???
This all goes back to the "changing goalposts" of this campaing. Obviously, Clinton will lose on pledged delegates. The supers, generally, will be unlikely to wrest the nomination away from Obama without being convinced that he "cannot win".
But when faced with the "Big State" argument, why is no one raising the "Big City" defense. For the big cities are democrats strongholds, and if Clinton can't win them now, how can she say she ever will???
Cant we conclude from this that the "big state" hoopla is just spin. Come on now, being intellectually honest, cant we???