Hillary's losses in Ohio and Texas

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday March 06, 2008 · 3:20 AM PST

2008/03/06 · 03:20

Everyone is talking about how Hillary won in both Ohio and Texas. What did she win. Well she won the popular vote and a few delegates. Hillary is claiming that because of these wins she is better suited to be the democratic nominee. I argue that because she lost huge leads in both races she is less suited to be the nominee. Let us look at what actually happened in both states.

After Wisconsin's primary Hillary had large double digit leads close to or over 20% in both Ohio and Texas. She won with a narrow single digit lead in Texas and a 10% lead in Ohio. This means Hillary Clinton, lost voters after the Wisconsin primary.

The question for the super delegates should be: Do they want a candidate who loses votes (10% or more) in a period of three or four weeks or one who wins votes in that same period.

To do this Hillary Clinton ran a highly negative and hard campaign. This does not bode well for her. Given her starting point and the campaign she ran, Hillary should have won both states by at least 20%. Think about it. She lost a significant number of voters. So Obama did not take 20% of the voters away. Big deal.

Looking at the race against McCain, Hillary will not have the advantage of having large percentages of voters favoring her. Indeed her percentages will likely be less than Obama's. Is there any evidence that Hillary can win new voters? None what so ever. Indeed in all the races she started with more voters recognizing her name and supporting her.

Come the fall, if McCain continues to pick up voters while Hillary loses voters there is little question that McCain will win. On the other hand a fight between Obama and McCain where both candidates can pick up voters, Obama will likely win.

This content was created by a Daily Kos Community member.

Make YOUR voice heard!

Comments are closed on this story.