It's not the "big" states that matter...

I think we can all agree with the Clinton campaign that there are some states that Obama won that the Democrats just won't win in November.  Idaho.  Alaska.  Wyoming.  Etc.  Not that they shouldn't campaign, but that they have no chance of winning.

I would hope, however, that we could also agree that there are some states that Clinton won that the Democrats are virtually guaranteed to win this November.  California.  New York.  Massachusetts.  Etc.

Because November's election will yet again be one about electoral votes, Clinton and Rendell's argument about "big states" has little to do with the actual numbers that matter this fall.  Instead, we should be looking at (shudder) "swing states".

So I ran some numbers.

Based on the 2004 election, there were 19 states in which neither Bush nor Kerry was victorious by more that 10%.  For the purposes of this diary, we'll call those our "swing" states: AR, CO, DE, FL, HI, IA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OR, PA, VA, WA, and WI.

Of those states, we have results from all but OR and PA (and FL and MI of course).  And the result?  Striking!

Obama wins the "swing state" delegate count 434-374!

He wins the so-called "popular vote" 3,932,644 - 3,402,811!!*

*Of course, given that caucus states like vastly underestimate support for a candidate (Obama got more "votes" in Arkansas, a state he got trounced in, than in the larger state of Colorado, in which he demolished Clinton), the "popular vote" is a useless metric.

Also, and more to the point, Obama gets 82 Electoral votes from his swing states; Clinton gets 55 from hers.  

Now, if you assume Clinton wins Pennsylvania, and Obama wins Oregon, Obama still wins the delegate count by a lot and the EV race 89-76.  It's true that if you give Florida to Clinton as-is, she goes ahead in EVs 103-89 but is still behind in delegates 501-481.  That would leave Michigan, where polls have the candidates tied.  If this election comes down to a Michigan re-do, I'm confident Obama would win; plus he currently leads McCain in head-to-head polls there, while Clinton trails McCain.  But regardless, this analysis blows to bits the argument that Clinton has any advantage in the general election due to her wins in "big states."  And I personally don't want to see the general election come down to the Dems needing to win Florida, as it does in most Hillary (but not Barack) scenarios.

I would like to add that of the 19 states I mentioned, all but NJ and HI were also swing states in 2000.  Assuming both will be safely blue this year, that's a net EV gain for Obama.  The three states in 2000 that were swing states that weren't in '04 were AZ (we've got no chance), LA (very unlikely to go blue, but leans Obama) and TN (was only swing because of the Gore factor).

In summation: "Big state" wins aren't nearly as important as "swing state wins" and I think any honest Clinton-backer should agree to that.  And since Obama wins or is close in the overall swing-state battle, arguments that superdelegates should willy-nilly ignore the primary electorate and impose her as the candidate are disingenuous at best, and more likely intentionally dishonest.

•  Obama also plays better VS. McCain

  in a majority of those states - compared to Hillary ...

  WHICH IS WHAT ACTUALLY MATTERS MORE THAN WHO WON THEM IN THE PRIMARY

  by justiceleague on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:35:08 PM PDT

•  Also its is basically impossible for a democrat

  to win Texas, which seems to be the basis of part of HRC "big state" claims.

  by Nylawstudent on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:40:32 PM PDT

  •  then there's the correllary

    Her ignoring DC, Delware, and Vermont - states it's nearly impossible for a Democrat to lose at this point.

    by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:42:34 PM PDT

    •  She does NOT ignore those states!

      Haven't you been paying attention?  New York, California, Massachusetts -- these are CRITICAL states for us in the fall.  And Hillary's victory there shows that only she can carry them in November.  It's all about the big states.

      Or something.

      by Samantha Jones for President on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:50:00 PM PDT

    •  DC

      I find it rather ironic that the person running on experience dismisses DC because it's small and urban with a large African American population (in whatever combination).

      by eColt on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:52:12 PM PDT

•  Hell no

  I think we can all agree with the Clinton campaign that there are some states that Obama won that the Democrats just won't win in November.  Idaho.  Alaska.  Wyoming.  Etc

  We don't say out loud to each other or the world that we aren't going to win any of the fifty states.  We go into each one like we're going to win it and we build local organizations designed to do just that.  

  Big picture, sure, we know we won't win everything.  But we don't point to a single state and say, That one, we lose that one.  

  Barack Obama drew 15,000 people to a speech in Boise Idaho fer cryin out loud.  Don't tell me anything is impossible.  Having this attitude in every state is what will infuse the Democratic party in all of those states with the energy they need to grow an win local contests.  Maybe in four years or eight years we'll win any of them.

  by Sun dog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:43:19 PM PDT

  •  only one

    The only state that we can be more or less certain we won't get is Arizona. Home-field advantage is a powerful thing.

    But you're totally right, we do need to stick with the 50-state strategy. We won't win 50, probably won't win 49. But the Dems aren't campaigning to change the coastlines, we're out to change America.

    by eColt on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:49:32 PM PDT

    •  Makes no difference at all where we win

      because if we compete in all of them then the republicans wont have the resources to defend themselves across the board.  They poured money into saving HASTERT's seat -- and LOST!  That's why an Obama candidacy (in my opinion) would produce a working majority in congress.

      by Samantha Jones for President on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:57:54 PM PDT

      •  Exactly!

        I wrote a diary about this last week.  The reason Hillary's bluster about winning Ohio is bs is because we would be running another circle the wagons campaign with her in the general.  With Obama, we would knock them back on their heels from Biloxi to Boise and pick off all the swing states as they tried to defend their supposed bread and butter.  

        by Sun dog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:32:53 PM PDT

•  Bottom line

  50%+1 does. not. work.

  Clinton's calculations are all about eeking out bare minimums - against Obama and against McCain.

  That - even with a "win" - will not allow us to address what ails this nation.  We must change the mindset and the landscape.  Clinton has shown she not only cannot do that but doesn't even see the necessity.

  by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:45:11 PM PDT

  •  Ah but it works for me not going off of it

    

    by B P Pgh on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:55:50 PM PDT

•  The blue state circus

  I totally agree on your dismissal of Clinton's "big state" strategy. Honestly, we could nominate a trained bear from the circus and still carry NY, MA and CA (unless we were running against Nixon or Raygun and all memory of the last eight years was erased from everyone's minds through a clever subliminal advertising campaign). She won these states, and good on her. But if you can't pick things up elsewhere you don't have much of a chance. As was demonstrated in 1972, you can't win the presidency on Massachusetts alone.

  by eColt on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:45:47 PM PDT

•  i agree in principle

  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

  •  then remove Florida

    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?

    by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:00:28 PM PDT

    •  well neither camp is being honest

      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

      •  good point!

        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

        •  delegates should win the nomination

          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

          •  polls tell us more than primary victories do

            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

            •  well except that

              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

              •  as the diarist

                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

                •  yeah they do

                  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

                  •  he rarely uses it

                    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

•  Texas

  recent polls (SUSA) suggest Texas might be in play if Obama is candidate and if Hispanics stick with Democratic party. Please know than Republicans carried the day for Clinton in Texas.

  by Texasblu on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:52:42 PM PDT

•  What is important in Nov

  is big swing states like Ohio, PA, FL, etc. Small swing states like HI and NM don't have enough electoral votes to make much difference.

  I am an Obama supporter so I am not making a back door Clinton argument. However we can see where the battles were in the last two presidential elections and it seems likely that they will be in the same places.

  Votes in the Democratic primary in those states do not directly translate into how things will look in the general election. They don't tell us much about what independents will do. However, it does seem useful to look at what is happening in places like Ohio and PA and FL and MI if there are new elections there. They have large populations and complex electorates.

  Clinton and Obama seem to have their strengths in very different segments of the Democratic party. This raises the question as to what those groups are likely to do in Nov.

  by Richard Lyon on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:04:08 PM PDT

  •  ummm actually

    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.

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

    •  I agree that both

      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

      •  Bayh

        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.

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

  •  so it's really a shame

    That they have blown the joint-ticket option (person with most delegates on top).  I really do believe they could pull in the most votes together, since there is little overlap in their bases.

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

    •  "they"?

      I think Clinton's "not qualified" statements blew the joint-ticket option.  I think it was an awful, awful mistake on her part and I think the voters and superdelegates should refuse to reward her for it.

      by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:14:00 PM PDT

      •  "reward her"?

        It's not about rewarding or punishing, it's about winning in Nov.  That's the only thing I care about.

        by sunshineonthebay on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:16:59 PM PDT

        •  both can win

          and by just about every metric I've seen, Obama's chances are better.

          Clinton's people don't want us to know that, however, so they make up silly arguments about "big states" as if primary victories have anything to do with general election victories.

          If you think Clinton has the best shot at winning in November, I'd love to hear your argument.  But please, no more of this "big state" primary-win gobbledygook.  It's senseless and doesn't stand up to basic analysis.

          by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:24:43 PM PDT

          •  hmm you're putting words in my mouth

            and then asking me to prove it?

            by sunshineonthebay on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:29:38 PM PDT

•  Damn...give it up

  Obama has yet to win a big state beside his home state of IL.

  by JustinL on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:15:51 PM PDT

  •  you forgot your snark tag....

    by Samantha Jones for President on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:17:50 PM PDT

•  You don't know what a swing state is

  There are ONLY THREE states that
  came up different for Gore and Kerry.
  They are Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico.
  These are also the only states where the 2004 winner
  won with less than 50% (another good definition of swing).
  It does bear stressing that Gore would've won
  in 2000 with New Hampshire (and that Nader, not
  the Supreme Court, spoiled THAT one -- Florida wasn't relevant so much for President as it was
  for massive violations of the civil rights of
  black people, which explains why it got mis-
  resolved).

  In 2004, however, adjustments from the 2000 census
  pulled fully 7 CDs/EVs from the blue half of the
  map to the red.  If Gore had not lost NH to Nader
  and 1 in DC to protest, he would've won in 2000 with 271
  as opposed to the 266 he got.  In 2004 for Kerry,
  however, those same 21 states +DC were worth
  only 264 EVs.  Kerry thus had an inherently harder
  battle; he needed 1 more state from somewhere.
  Instead of getting the 1 more he needed, he lost
  Iowa and New Mexico.  Among states he just barely
  held on to, he also fell below 50% in Wisconsin.
  Gore (thanks to Nader) had also been below 50% in
  Maine, Minnesota, and Oregon.  But without him,
  Kerry was above in all three -- my point is that
  these states, despite Gore's close call, are trending
  bluER and may have been GREENer back when Gore
  was low.  They are NOT CLOSE to red.  They are
  NOT swing.

  Thus, there are AT MOST SIX swing states.
  They are are Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire,
  Wisconsin, and whatever-1-more-state-Kerry-needed
  in 2004 --  Or 2-more if they're small.  The only
  small state in which Bush got less than 50% in
  2000 was Nevada.  So that is swing.  The problem
  is that picking it up won't be enough.  We STILL
  need one more.

  Unless you know WHICH one that state is,
  you don't know what a swing state is.
  
  Ohio or Florida would do -- they are plenty
  big enough and they are also the only two states
  not-already-known-swing that Bush won with LESS
  than 50% in 2000.
  But everybody ALREADY KNEW that Florida and Ohio
  were big enough to swing the whole election all
  by themselves.  There is therefore no point in
  even bothering with this exercise unless you know
  a way for us to win WITHOUT EITHER of Florida and
  Ohio.  In 2000 there was a way.  By 2004 it was
  no longer clear -- the census shift had required
  us to find 6 more EVs from some state.
  Nevada only has 5.  If we can swing Nevada then
  the next best bet is Arkansas if HRC is nominated.
  If not, then where??

  by ge0rge on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:20:16 PM PDT

  •  Colorado and Iowa

    Obama has an excellent chance, I believe, in swinging these two states, along with Nevada.  I think your definition of "swing" is far more short-sighted than mine.  I agree it's silly to think of New Jersey as a swing state, but Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico certainly qualify in 2008.  According to SUSA, Obama runs far better in all 4 than do Clinton or McCain.

    Those 4 states are the true swing states for this election and allow us to lose Ohio (which we won't, now that the GOP SOS and Gov are out) if it comes to that.

    by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:31:49 PM PDT