Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Clintons Big State Myth

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Muskogee.Oklahoma
    Posts
    9,512

    Clintons Big State Myth

    To paraphrase Public Enemy"Don't believe the hype"
    The Clinton campaign claims that since it won the "big states", it makes her a more effective general election candidate. Let's take a look at that logic.

    The 10 biggest states by population. I've added numbers form SUSA's 50-state poll matching up Obama and Clinton to McCain.

    1.) California: O +9, C +10
    2.) Texas: O -1, O -7
    3.) New York: O +14, C +18
    4.) Florida: O -2, C +9
    5.) Illinois: O +29, C +11
    6.) Pennsylvania: O -5, C +1
    7.) Ohio: O +10, C +10
    8.) Michigan: O +1, C-even
    9.) Georgia: O -13, C -21
    10.) North Carolina: O -2, C -8



    Of those, California, New York, and Ohio (all of which Clinton won) are solidly Democratic. California and New York will certainly stay (D) in November. Illinois, which Obama won, is solidly (D) no matter who the nominee is. The two are essentially even in Michigan, while neither is currently competitive in Georgia.

    Of the states that will be competitive, Obama has clear advantages in Texas and North Carolina, while Clinton has clear advantages in Pennsylvania and Florida. In the electoral math, that is 49 EVs for Obama, 48 for Clinton.

    Yup, Obama has a one electoral vote advantage from the top 10 "big states" that Clinton can't stop yammering about.

    But more important than the biggest states should be the closest states in 2004. I've coded states that Obama won this primary season in Blue, Clinton in Red. Those still pending in black:

    New Mexico: -1
    Iowa: -1
    New Hampshire: +1
    Wisconsin: +1
    Ohio: -2
    Pennsylvania: +2
    Michigan: +3
    Minnesota: +3
    Nevada: -3
    Oregon: +4 [update: changed to "pending" from Blue]
    Colorado: -5
    Florida: -5
    Delaware: +7
    Washington: +7
    Missouri: -7
    New Jersey: +7
    Virginia: -8



    If you were to make the moronic assumption that only the winner of the primary could win those states, that would add up to 81 74 electoral votes for Obama, 49 for Clinton. But better yet, let's look at SUSA's 50 state poll and see how the candidates fared in these states against McCain. I've color coded them Blue for states that Obama does better in, and Red for those Clinton does better:

    New Mexico: O +7, C-even
    Iowa: O +9, C -5
    New Hampshire: O +2, C -8
    Wisconsin: O +11, C +4
    Ohio: O +10, C +10
    Pennsylvania: O -5, C +1
    Michigan: O +1, C-even
    Minnesota: O +7, C +4
    Nevada: O +5, C -8
    Oregon: O +8, C -5
    Colorado: O +9, C -6
    Florida: O -2, C +9
    Delaware: O +9, C +5
    Washington: O +14, C -2
    Missouri: O -6, C -4
    New Jersey: O-even, C +5
    Virginia: O-even, C -10



    Pretty stark, huh? In terms of electoral votes, that's an advantage of 101 for Obama, 74 for Clinton.

    No matter how you parse it, the data is clear that Obama is the more competitive November candidate for the Democratic Party.
    "On the sixth day, God created man. On the seventh day, man returned the favor."
    http://www.house-mixes.com/profile/djchefron

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    14,602
    I'm not sure I (or Colin) can make heads or tales from all that, but I did hear another interesting stat last night. Of the states that went democratic in 2004, Obama has won twice as many as Clinton.

    Also, of the states won by 20% or more in this primary, we're now up to 21 for Obama (thanks MS); 2 for Clinton.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    dc
    Posts
    39,711
    you gotta provide a link, this does not make sense. the comparison should be the number of electoral college votes for states won by each candidate, so far, and holding out texas michigan and florida

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    49,481
    Quote Originally Posted by mhd View Post
    you gotta provide a link, this does not make sense. the comparison should be the number of electoral college votes for states won by each candidate, so far, and holding out texas michigan and florida
    chefron never provides links

    we have no idea what these numbers mean
    As for the charges against me, I am unconcerned. I am beyond their timid lying morality, and so I am beyond caring.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bovineopolis
    Posts
    33,508
    Quote Originally Posted by AK View Post
    I'm not sure I (or Colin) can make heads or tales from all that, but I did hear another interesting stat last night. Of the states that went democratic in 2004, Obama has won twice as many as Clinton.

    Also, of the states won by 20% or more in this primary, we're now up to 21 for Obama (thanks MS); 2 for Clinton.

    I no see no colors.
    F.O.N.O- The Sag Party
    Dec 3 @ The Paradox 1310 Russell Str.
    Wayne Davis and Mark Mendoza
    Hosted by Moo.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    14,602
    When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."

    When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.

    When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.

    When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.

    When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.

    And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.
    But the facts are clear.

    For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, we have won more delegates, more states, and more votes.
    Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

    We're ready to take on John McCain. But we also need to build operations in places like Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, and Oregon that will hold their primaries in April and May.

    Barack Obama needs your support right now to fight this two-front battle. Please make a donation of $250 right now:
    https://donate.barackobama.com/delegatemath

    With our overwhelming victory in the Mississippi primary yesterday, our lead in earned delegates is now wider than it was on March 3rd, before the contests in Ohio and Texas.
    And thanks to your help, we have dramatically increased our support among so-called "superdelegates" -- Governors, Members of Congress, and party officials who have a vote at the Democratic National Convention in August.

    As the number of remaining delegates dwindles, Hillary Clinton's path to the nomination seems less and less plausible.
    Now that Mississippi is behind us, we move on to the next ten contests. The Clinton campaign would like to focus your attention only on Pennsylvania -- a state in which they have already declared that they are "unbeatable."

    But Pennsylvania is only one of those 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who our nominee will be.

    We have activated our volunteer networks in each of these upcoming battlegrounds. We're putting staff on the ground and building our organization everywhere.

    The key to victory is not who wins the states that the Clinton campaign thinks are important. The key to victory is realizing that every vote and every voter matters.

    Throughout this entire process, the Clinton campaign has cherry-picked states, diminished caucuses, and moved the goal posts to create a shifting, twisted rationale for why they should win the nomination despite winning fewer primaries, fewer states, fewer delegates, and fewer votes.
    We must stand up to the same-old Washington politics. Barack has won twice as many states, large and small, in every region of the country -- many by landslide margins. And this movement is expanding the base of the Democratic Party by attracting new voters in record numbers and bringing those who had lost hope back into the political process.
    Push back against the spin and help build the operation to win more delegates in these upcoming contests:
    https://donate.barackobama.com/delegatemath

    Thank you for your support and for everything you've done to build a movement that is engaging voters and winning contests in every part of this country.

    David
    David Plouffe
    Campaign Manager
    Obama for America

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bovineopolis
    Posts
    33,508
    Quote Originally Posted by AK View Post
    When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."

    When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.

    When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.

    When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.

    When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.

    And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.
    But the facts are clear.

    For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, we have won more delegates, more states, and more votes.
    Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

    We're ready to take on John McCain. But we also need to build operations in places like Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, and Oregon that will hold their primaries in April and May.

    Barack Obama needs your support right now to fight this two-front battle. Please make a donation of $250 right now:
    https://donate.barackobama.com/delegatemath

    With our overwhelming victory in the Mississippi primary yesterday, our lead in earned delegates is now wider than it was on March 3rd, before the contests in Ohio and Texas.
    And thanks to your help, we have dramatically increased our support among so-called "superdelegates" -- Governors, Members of Congress, and party officials who have a vote at the Democratic National Convention in August.

    As the number of remaining delegates dwindles, Hillary Clinton's path to the nomination seems less and less plausible.
    Now that Mississippi is behind us, we move on to the next ten contests. The Clinton campaign would like to focus your attention only on Pennsylvania -- a state in which they have already declared that they are "unbeatable."

    But Pennsylvania is only one of those 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who our nominee will be.

    We have activated our volunteer networks in each of these upcoming battlegrounds. We're putting staff on the ground and building our organization everywhere.

    The key to victory is not who wins the states that the Clinton campaign thinks are important. The key to victory is realizing that every vote and every voter matters.

    Throughout this entire process, the Clinton campaign has cherry-picked states, diminished caucuses, and moved the goal posts to create a shifting, twisted rationale for why they should win the nomination despite winning fewer primaries, fewer states, fewer delegates, and fewer votes.
    We must stand up to the same-old Washington politics. Barack has won twice as many states, large and small, in every region of the country -- many by landslide margins. And this movement is expanding the base of the Democratic Party by attracting new voters in record numbers and bringing those who had lost hope back into the political process.
    Push back against the spin and help build the operation to win more delegates in these upcoming contests:
    https://donate.barackobama.com/delegatemath

    Thank you for your support and for everything you've done to build a movement that is engaging voters and winning contests in every part of this country.

    David
    David Plouffe
    Campaign Manager
    Obama for America

    AK ..... help me out...

    is it moo, or.... doesnt it seem like her base are working class white folk who are more inclined to have a racial bias? They are described as "blue collar" industrial working class ... that has usually translated in Red Neck ... and if so.... Seems to me: progressive, educated, exposed, liberal latte drinkers are EVERYONE ELSE and are Obama's base.

    any thoughts?
    F.O.N.O- The Sag Party
    Dec 3 @ The Paradox 1310 Russell Str.
    Wayne Davis and Mark Mendoza
    Hosted by Moo.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Muskogee.Oklahoma
    Posts
    9,512
    Sorry about that post the article and had to pack for my trip. Got the info from the Dailey Kos heres the linkhttp://http://dailykos.com/
    "On the sixth day, God created man. On the seventh day, man returned the favor."
    http://www.house-mixes.com/profile/djchefron

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    14,602
    Quote Originally Posted by KBig View Post
    AK ..... help me out...

    is it moo, or.... doesnt it seem like her base are working class white folk who are more inclined to have a racial bias? They are described as "blue collar" industrial working class ... that has usually translated in Red Neck ... and if so.... Seems to me: progressive, educated, exposed, liberal latte drinkers are EVERYONE ELSE and are Obama's base.

    any thoughts?
    Honestly, I think that's a bit of an oversimplification and probably not a fair characterization of a lot of those folks. In certain states like Wisconsin, for example, Obama has carried the blue collar white demographic. Generally speaking, it's certainly true that he does better among those with higher formal education and higher income. One might be inclined to draw certain conclusions from that.

    Now looking at some of those small rural counties in Mississippi where she trounced him last night, I'm guessing "red neck" might be an accurate description. I mean, it is Mississippi...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •