And so the big showdown is on the way this Saturday. The DNC lawyers say Legally the DNC cannot seat more than half the delegates from Florida and Michigan. Hillary Clinton and her supporters are still demanding the DNC seat 100% of the delegates from the two states. And Clinton supporters are threatening to disrupt the meetings and create a circus-like atmosphere outside at the so-called "Count Every Vote" Rally.

My Question: Why Should We Count The Votes Of Those Who Thought Their Votes Should Matter MORE than the rest of the country's? More...

So I was looking into Hillary's big state "strategy" and found the following quote from "a post-Super Tuesday memo from Mark Penn" at this link:

As super-delegates consider which candidate to support, they will be looking at which one candidate has a base and can win the big states, including the crucial swing constituencies. We believe the impressive wins in NY, CA, MA, MI, FL, NJ, AZ suggest that Hillary is the one who can motivate a strong turnout in November.

Follow me over the fold:

After looking for a common theme among the handful of states she has actually managed to win this primary season, Hillary Clinton and her campaign have informed us that it's the BIG STATES that really matter.  And who can argue with that?  This is America, after all, and we all know bigger is better!  But who's really winning the BIG STATES?

To answer that burning question, I have performed an exhaustive statistical analysis of state size and delegate totals, and I have analyzed this data in several ways.  Florida and Michigan are not included; territories and D.C. are included, but results are similar without them.  My findings are as follows:

These polls that supposedly show proof (according to Hillary supporters – that have a memory loss whenever they see FACTS like - Obama’s won more States, more delegates, gained more Supers 53 to her negative 5 since Super Tues) that Hillary can win the Big States – don’t really tell us anything:

FLORIDA: Clinton 44 - McCain 42
McCain 46 - Obama 37

OHIO: Clinton 48 - McCain 39
Obama 43 - McCain 42

PENNSYLVANIA: Clinton 48 - McCain 40
Obama 43 - McCain 39

Look at the Gallup that came out recently that Keith Olbermann pointed to saying the Democrats felt Obama could beat McCain by something like 60% to 22% Hillary.

Rasmussen has come up with new polls comparing Clinton/McCain and Obama/McCain for New York, Connecticut and Florida. It also had a couple new polls for Ohio and California on Friday.
Now, the media probably won't make much mention of them because they don't fit their narrative that the Clinton campaign has put forth about winning the "big states", but what they show is that overall Obama is actually doing better vs McCain than Hillary Clinton in these "big states" that Clinton keeps talking about.

This is my first post :)

      I must disclose that I am a huge Obama supporter.  That said, I am exhausted and tired of the spin coming from the Clinton campaign concerning small states vs. big states and red states vs. blue states.  It is ridiculous.  There are three particular reasons for my angst towards these comments, which I will briefly expound upon.

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".

Some states do matter more than others!

Hillary Clinton's mantra to the super delegates has been that, although Obama is ahead in pledged delegates, overall delegates, popular vote, and states won, she has won the so-called "big states." In truth, she has...against other Democrats.  However, when one looks at the vote count in a matchup of Obama versus McCain, another truth emerges.

More after the fold.

I don't support Obama because I believe he is electable.  But his electability is a substantial bonus.  Still, views continue to circulate that his failure to win certain states (e.g. CA, NY, MA, OH, TX) against Clinton in the primaries spell his doom in the GE.  That is a flawed line of reasoning on two accounts.  Firstly, the Democratic electorate's behaviour will obviously differ enormously in the GE with one Democratic candidate.  Secondly, the Democratic primary is not winner-take-all like the GE (for most states anyhow).  Some of Obama's opponents maintain that is current advantage is due to the technicalities of insider baseball (AKA delegate math).  Others cast doubt on his ability to win a convincing majority of the popular vote.  Still others proclaim his relative inability to win big states, and it is this contention against which I have seen the least argument.

I have to say that the Obama campaign has been brilliant, in fact Barrack himself has been utterly flawless to date. The campaign was able to amass a swarm of delegates in generally uncontested caucuses in red states that clearly went under the Clinton radar. They have left HRC in a virtual must win situation. Obama has said little that anyone could disagree with. That he represents a new generation goes without saying. However is the MTV generation ready to take on the mantle of leadership in these perilous times?