What a bizarre contention, but one that the pundits are pushing, particularly the right wingers like Joe Scarborough on MSNBC (and he is one of the moderates among them). The idea that Hillary is winning, will win, or has won primaries in the states that Democrats must win--you know, states like California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts.
These are not states that Democrats must win. These are states that the Democrats WILL win. We won these states with lousy campaigns for candidates like Gore and Kerry. We could win these states if we nominated Krusty the Clown. But with a divisive and annoying candidate like Hillary, we could see reliable states like Minnesota and Wisconsin, even Michigan and Pennsylvania, in play for the GOP. How the hell did Kerry lose Iowa and New Mexico? Do you really think that all the blue states are in the bag if we nominate Hillary? Maybe it's not an accident that she is campaigning as if those states have to be won.
I am in Texas. Today's local news had sitting Republican judges who are incumbents in a county where there is not a single Democratic judge on the bench openly worrying that with Barack on the ticket, they may all be swept out of office. I've heard from many state and local Democratic candidates that if Hillary is the nominee, they have no chance. So are we to believe that these GOP incumbents are dissembling and that these Democratic candidates are mistaken?
While canvassing in Houston, I run into Republicans all over the place. I have yet to meet one who is not praying that Hillary is our nominee;
some are planning on voting for her. (I confess that I voted for Buchanan in at least one GOP primary, maybe 1996, in the same spirit.)
As long ago as January 2005, I was with some rich Republican friends at a social gathering. Those who were not already worrying about Obama were expressing admiration for him. It's a "guy thing" that they never had with Gore or Kerry.
I see Barack winning all the blue states that Gore won, the one he lost (NH)that Kerry won, and several others as possibilities. Meanwhile, Clinton is arguing that she is winning or has won primaries in blue states. So what? Does anyone think that those who preferred her in blue states will vote for McCain? Yet that is her argument even though it is Barack who attracts independents who might be McCain voters if Hillary is the Democratic nominee.
Here again, a Hillary nomination is just a re-run of 2000 and 2004; try to get one more state. You can forget Florida. So it's Ohio--again.
Take a look at the really crucial states like Missouri, which is a traditionally Democratic state. And Lousiana, which recently elected an Indian-American as governor.
Meanwhile, I am doing my best in Texas to help explain how the caucus/convention works. And you know what? It's really pretty simple. You can show up at the caucus/convention and sign in, indicate your preference, i.e vote again for your candidate, and then leave. Despite the stakes this year, in most of my canvassing her in Texas, the big worry about the caucus/convention is that it might take up some time and you miss "American Idol" or whatever.