The Big Costs of Hillary's "Big Wins"

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton may have won three of four primaries last Tuesday, gaining needed momentum for her flagging campaign, but in the end the cost of these wins may prove too high.

First and foremost, is the fact that, despite the victories, she still cannot capture the nomination unless there is a party-splitting fight or equally damaging rule change.

After Super Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama proceeded to win 12 contests in a row, amassing an elected delegate total that Clinton cannot surpass. Before last Tuesday, Obama had won 24 state contests to Clinton's 11, and he led by 160 delegates. Clinton's three victories will only net her campaign an extra six delegates, reducing Obama's lead to a still insurmountable 154.

Political analysts, looking forward to the remaining 12 states to hold primaries and caucuses, argue that unless Clinton wins them all by an average of 65 percent (an impossible scenario), she cannot catch up. This, therefore, means that Obama will go to the convention in Denver with more elected delegates than Clinton, though not the outright majority needed to win the nomination.

Two options will then remain. One, of course, is that superdelegates will decide the winner. The danger here is that if the superdelegates vote to give the nomination to the second-place Clinton, the Democratic Party may well emerge from the convention divided, and with a wounded nominee.

Barack Obama has not only energized African Americans, but mobilized a movement of young people with a restored faith in politics. Along the way, he recruited tens of thousands of volunteers and received contributions from an unprecedented 1.1 million donors (most of them for $100 or less). His campaign bears many of the trademarks of a social movement. Because of this, many of those he has energized and mobilized will not simply follow a nominee whom they feel won a "fixed" contest, and represents "politics as usual."

Another party-splitting scenario proposed by the Clinton campaign, is their insistence on having delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention. Michigan and Florida broke party rules, had their delegates canceled, and saw none of the candidates campaigning in either state. These elections were not real contests. Clinton won in Michigan because she was the only major candidate who remained on the ballot (the others having withdrawn their names); and she won in Florida largely because of name recognition, since Obama honored the party's pledge not to campaign in the state. Therefore, to reward both states' bad behavior would compromise the integrity of the election and result in a divided and possibly rancorous Democratic convention.

Nevertheless, most Democrats want the Florida and Michigan problems to be fixed -- but not in a manner that would have their non-sanctioned primaries decide the outcome of the convention. A number of options are currently being discussed, and it is hoped that this matter can be resolved before too long.

Another major reason why the costs of Clinton's victories may be too high has to do with the tactics they utilized to achieve them. Almost since the beginning of this campaign, Hillary Clinton, her husband (the former president) or campaign operatives, played many negative cards in an effort to slow Obama's growing momentum. They played the "Muslim card," the "race card," the "experience card," the "drug card," and the "gender card." None succeeded.

And so when, in the last two weeks, the Clinton campaign promised a stepped-up negative assault, it was not surprising to see them find still more cards to play. There was, for example: the "fear/security card" (with Clinton claiming that only she -- or her Republican opponent! -- had the experience to defend the country from a terrorist threat), or the "cynicism card" (with Clinton mocking Obama's political rhetoric), or the "scandal card," the "victim of unfair media card" or the "plagiarism card." All of these combined took a toll, not only on Barack Obama, but on the Democratic constituency.

The constant attacks did, at times, appear to throw the Obama campaign slightly off-kilter; but, more than that, they opened up and deepened some fissures within the Democratic Party itself. As a result, following primaries, it now appears that about one-fifth of those who voted for Barack Obama have been so angered by these negative tactics that they would be hard-pressed to support Clinton if she were the nominee. Similarly, Clinton has now succeeded in molding the attitudes of about one-fifth of her voters who now say that they will not now support Obama should he be the nominee.

The negative campaigning worked, but arguably will help Republicans more in November than it helped Hillary Clinton last Tuesday. If Senator Clinton's goal was to "hard-foul" and deliver a wounded Obama and battle-tested tactics to use against him to the Republicans, she succeeded.

A side note: an additional cost to be calculated in all of this has been the price paid by Senator Clinton's husband, the former President. Once revered by many Democrats, despite the series of scandals and "triangulations" that characterized his Administration, Bill Clinton today appears reduced to a campaign heavy and hatchet man. It is not at all becoming, and more than a little sad.

Comments

[larstein]

Do you know what kind of counting machine is in place in the district where you vote? Can you be sure that your vote is counted honestly and fairly? If it's a computer voting machine, chances are it's a fraud box. I'm afraid that this is what it's come to. The fix was in for McCain, that was easy. Republicans are far too trusting of their own brand. Democrats are being split in two by the machines that count their votes. But if I suspect the vote is rigged when my side loses, the other side has to feel the same way if they lose. The disparity between polls and election totals is highly suspicious. Who knows? And that's the point, we need fair and accurate counts. After all, as Stalin once said, it's not the voters who matter, it's who counts the votes. Right now, it's reasonable to assume that every election in this country has been rigged since computerized voting went in. Virtual democracy, also called fascism.

[Susan1968]

Exerpts from an Interesting 2-page article about how Obama's Small State strategy stacks up in a GE:

Even some Obama advisers see a real problem. "Ultimately, all that matters is how the nominee stacks up against John McCain," said one adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity, referring to the senator from Arizona and presumptive GOP nominee. "Right now, Barack is not connecting with the children of the Reagan Democrats. That's a real concern."

But many Democratic elected officials are worried. "No one's jumping up and down in Okeechobee, Florida, saying we've got a perfect ticket," agreed Rep. Tim Mahoney (Fla.), a moderate, unaffiliated Democrat in a swing district. "If you're a Barack Obama, you're going to have to figure out how to reach out to white, middle-aged men."

Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), who like Mahoney has not endorsed either Obama or Clinton, is concerned about Obama's poor performance among Latino voters in California and Texas.

"A lot of the states he's winning are states that we're not going to win in November," said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), a Clinton supporter. "It's not a strategy that bodes well, in my opinion."

Obama aides still insist that it is a strategy that will work. Even after Tuesday, when he lost three out of four contests, Obama maintained his delegate lead. Indeed, his strength in the parallel caucuses in Texas may have actually given him more delegates than Clinton, even though she won the popular vote by 51 percent to 47 percent. But his campaign faces a legitimacy test that is beginning to resonate throughout the Democratic establishment: Can Obama win the big prizes?

Pennsylvania's primary will be followed by contests in West Virginia, Indiana and Kentucky, all of which have similar, lunch-pail demographics. If Clinton enters the summer on a roll, especially in the big states, the superdelegates may no longer feel that backing her would be opposing the will of the voters, an Obama supporter said.

"Superdelegates are politicians. They will not buck the will of the voters," said a superdelegate supporting Obama. "The danger point comes if the superdelegates don't see a vote for Clinton as bucking anyone."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703318.html

[Montanamotor]

Okay, Susan1968, you have paid your dues to the clinton-Campaign. But whatever you may say - there ARE FACTS, YOU CANNOT BURN, BRAKE OR, BURY: a. Barack Obama will remain AHEAD in delegates up until the DNC-Denver-convention, whatever Hillary may try. b. Hillary CANNOT WIN the nomination, unless she tries to foul, breake or bend actual, valid DNC-rules. c. IF Hillary would do so, the next president would UNOUBTEDLY be John McCain - because, no decent democrat would EVER support a presidential nominee, who hasn't been nominated DEMOCRATICALLY by the convention. THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS, Hillary is only up for the presidency to satisfy her greed for power. And THIS IS EXACTLY, why she will not become president. No way. Never. Not until Hell freezes over. If all went down to choose between McCain and Clinton for president - McCain definitely is the lesser evil. So, now you make your own calculations about, what should happen next.

[JavaCityGal]

Totally agree. If Hillary steals the nomination, millions of voters will stay home and Hillary will lose to her best bud McCain. I myself will protest vote with a write-in for Obama. I can not in good conscious vote for Hillary and condone the polarizing, kitchen sink, throw-your=own-party-under-the-bus, win at all costs tactics -- it would set a bad precendent for future elections. I have written my state super delegates that have pledged for Clinton and let them know exactly how I feel about her tactics and that I won't condone them with my vote.

[CaptainObvious]

The media is so unfair to Hillary. How dare they uncritically regurgitate Clinton camp talking points? They need to bring in more "experts" to tell us how absolutely coorect she is, and how her candidacy has seen "a return to inevitability"

[FreedomLoverX]

Obama WON Texas. Why keep repeating the falsehood that he lost? He WON. That is a fact. Even with 700,000 Limbaugh republicans voting for Hillary to spoil the race, Obama still came out ahead. Let's get that straight.

[Swift2]

Oh, Mr. Zogby, I heard you on C-Span the morning of Super Tuesday, predicting a 13-point win for Obama in California, but Hillary won by 10, I believe, but with that wide a miss, why bother with precision? And you said that the exit polls showed that Kerry had won the presidency. My question? Will use answer the red phone, please?

[uffa]

That's different Zogby, Einstein.

[FreedomLoverX]

Kerry did win. Where have you been?

[EspressoAtNoon]

Mr. Zogby,
I love your posts!!! Excellent analysis!!!

[nik12]

Mr. Zogby, a question. How do you feel about the nomination going to a candidate whose backing is due in substantial part to nods from Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, Idaho, and Alaska . . . States that are unlikely to vote Democrat in this election. Eight of these States have not voted for a Democrat since 1964, Alabama hasn't since 1976 (didn't vote twice for Carter), and Georgia hasn't since 1992 (didn't vote twice for Clinton).
Let Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia vote before you start calling in the "fix." Also let's see what happens with Florida and Michigan. If Clinton fails in any of Pennsylvania, Florida, or Michigan, then Obama will have taken a real step to showing he is indeed the better candidate in the contentious States. If Clinton does win those States, then please don't say the "fix" is in if the superdelegates go for Clinton.

[Montanamotor]

This is not, what the actual DNC-rules say. You just can't spin rules as you like. Either, you play after the rules, or you don't play at all. It's that plain simple. Hasn't your mother taught you so?

[nik12]

Which rules are you referring to? The superdelegates can vote for whomever they want. Most agree the remaining superdelegates will vote for the candidate they feel is most elect-able in November. If (and I agree it is a big if) Clinton wins the States that I have laid out above, then why would it be so outrageous if they chose her? No rule says they can't.

[indie17]

Don't forget, Obama won these states that the Democratics needed in 2004 to win (these all went for Kerry): Illinois, Washington, Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, Vermont, Hawaii, Maryland, and D.C.

Obama also won several 'purple' states that would help the Democrats to actually WIN the 2008 election: Colorado, Virginia, and Iowa.

You Dem vs Rep argument doesn't hold water, unless you think these 'red' state wins are likely to vote for her in the general: Texas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Nevada.

[nik12]

I never said Texas was a "big" win . . . or Oklahoma for that matter.

No doubt Colorado and Iowa are great wins for Obama. The Dems (and I) certainly would love for them to be blue in 2008. That doesn't change the fact that Virginia is a pipe-dream. Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin are also great wins on Obama's side for that matter.

However, just for your information, Nevada and Tennessee voted for Bill Clinton in both 1992 and 1996, and Arizona voted for him in 1996 as well. Don't call these States "red" while simultaneously calling Colorado and Virginia "purple" States. Colorado, who last voted Democrat in 1992, is similar to Arizona, Nevada, and Tennessee. Meanwhile, Virginia hasn't voted Democrat since 1964.

My only point here was that Clinton got Arkansas, Ohio, Tennessee, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. If she wins Pennsylvania, and revotes (if they happen) in Florida and Michigan, then the superdelegates have a serious quandary to resolve; it won't be as cut-and-dry as some here make it out to be, and if they choose Clinton it won't necessarily be because the "fix" is in.

[billflannigan]

The reason Clinton has won several of the big states, the traditional democratic/blue states, is partly because she has so much help from the party establishments in those states (see OH). The "win" in TX, by your logic, shouldn't really count then, b/c Dems haven't won TX in 30+ years, and in any case, the exit polls pretty clearly show a significant bump in support for HRC coming from republicans who, responding to Limbaugh's call to muck up the election, voted for HRC just to keep the race going. Another thing about all this blue/red state argument, the big blue states (NY, NJ, MA, CA)- they are going to vote for any democratic candidate and will certainly go for Obama. The only argument she can make is with swing states like OH, CO, MO and FL. Obama won CO and MO, HRC won OH (which still may go for McCain) and as for FL- she won nothing except the name recognition game, which she had going in and which he never could overcome since they both agreed the votes wouldn't count and they wouldn't campaign there. HRC, if she wins by getting the Supers to buy into her argument that she, and only she, can win states like NY and CA, will have pulled off the biggest scam in the history of politics. and in the process, she will guarantee the Dems will lose in Nov. and will also destroy the Party, esp. all the millions who voted for and support Obama. Her arrogance and hubris keep her from seeing this inevitable truth.

[JavaCityGal]

Bravo, well said, and agree 100%!!

[JXB]

This boils down to an argument that Democratic primary and caucus voters in Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, etc. and their respective pledged delegates should count less or be regarded as less important than the same from other states. Not a good argument to take to the superdelegates or into the general election.

[rwilliams1961]

I was raised in a Yellow Dog household and have seen a lot of nomination fights, but has been the worst.

Prior to Baby Tuesday, I'd hoped that Hillary both understood the math of the popular vote and delegate count, accepted it as the reality that it is, and would not ask the party to choose between a woman with fewer votes over an African American with the majority of votes. That alone would cause division within the party, and the road there would do even more damage.

If she had accepted the reality of the vote and the fact that a convention battle would destroy the party's chances in November, I believed she would emerge from this race as the new leader of the Democratic Party, heir to Ted Kennedy. However, she doesn't seem to view that as befitting her crown.

The result is her decision this week to run this race to the end and the Democratic party into the ground.

Hillary, you have convinced your followers that you are a victim. They dismiss your lies about Reagan, Canada, your involvement in the Irish Peace Process, etc. They further dismiss your campaign's race baiting. They believe your claim that the need for a popular vote is a myth - which they internalize despite the results of such a set aside during the 2000 general election. These same followers, of which one is a close friend of mine, tell me that they will not vote for Obama if he is he is the nominee.

Hillary, your ego and sense of entitlement has overwhelmed any common sense and honor that you had before this race. Your husband has destroyed the respect and admiration many had for him, as well. Good job.

[adamNsteve]

you do mean "delegates", not votes, don't you? .

Pffff.... this kind of junk comment/commentary is damaging itself... .

lets face it, surrogates have done more mud slinging than the candidates.... .

you and your EXACT duplicates in Hillary's campaign (aka "I'll never vote for Him/Her") drive sensible Democrats like me to consider writing in NADER.

[illinoisan]

Oh yeah, that would be "sensible" alright.

[tbone99]

I guess she is hoping that if she wins she will have a second chance in which to redeem herself.
It seems like politicians bank on that - thats why people like larry Craig or Vittner could go back to work without even blinking.Its exactly why Bush is in the W.H. now. In the end, Americans are all about winning, and to hell with the process.

Its actually one of the thing that I admire in a kind of stupified way about the Clintons- they always seem to find the psychic resources to fight another day -

[Galina]

is not tis is a time for a petition asking Hillary to switch the party allegeance? - She is thoroughly contaminated with the GOP venom. She is one of them

[GreatGoodKid]

She supports McCain over Obama! Often! She can't even exit gracefully now. Why are you doing this to your own party Hillary???

[tbone99]

Obama lauded Reagan over Clinton and the Repugs over the Dems.!He wants to appoint Repugs in his Cabinet! they're both Repugs in Dem clothing.

Lets not be hypocritical here.

[Sloane7]

This truly is the best suggestion I have seen in weeks. If Hillary searches her soul she will have to admit that truly she is a Republican to the core. Every word from her mouth supports Republican candidates, values and interests. Her actions are those of a valiant member of the GOP and her tactics could not be more Rove specific. Rove even gave her campaign advice. The GOP could have their first female Republican candidate and frankly, they would probably appreciate her more than McCain. Even Coulter likes her. Hillary, we get that you're a Republican. Please make it official.

[patrice37]

NO! Hillary did not win 3 of 4 contests on Tuesday. She won 2 of 4. The caucus results will almost certainly give Obama at least 3 more delegates than Clinton. The media, in their collective fear of Howard Wolfson, have misreported the week's campaign in a hugely serious way. Anyway, otherwise, Mr. Zogby, a really good post.

[Art23]

I don't agree with most of Mr. Zogby's points. The negative attacks Obama is complaining about now are nothing compared to what the Republicans will unleash after the convention. It's better that the eventual nominee gets inoculated against and inured to them now rather than later. This is a test for both candidates ... if you can't take the heat ...

I think this campaign is great for the Democratic party, it's generating a lot of interest and bringing up a lot of issues. The whole country is transfixed. I've had it with all this whining and lily-liveredness about how this will hurt the party. BS!! Nor will it alienate voters in November. Democrats are so desperate for the White House that whichever candidate emerges as the nominee after the convention, all will be forgiven, esp. once the McCain campaign starts hacking into them. And McCain will have no trouble finding all the attack lines without any help from Hillary, thank you.

It's about time the Obama wave hit some rocks - if he weathers the attacks well he will be a much better candidate in the fall. A lot of his whining and complaining supporters sound like children who have some rosy unrealistic picture of how the Presidency is (or ought to be) won, and how life will be for a Democratic President (no matter how charming and inspirational he or she is on the stump). Grow up, and get real!!

As for Bill Clinton compromising his post-presidency stature, what would you expect him to do - stay aloof and above the fray when his wife is fighting for her political life?!! Of course he was going to get down in the trenches and fight tooth and nail to win the nomination for her. I think it does him more credit than harm that he was willing to lay everything on the line for her. Those who will stop admiring him because of this probably are too young or have forgotten just how great (and grateful) a following he has in the party.

[mawrm]

I respect what you're saying but here's the problem and unfortunately it's only the Obama supporters who can see this clearly because of the unique nature of WHO is supporting Obama. Of the Dem candidates, Obama enjoys overwhelming support from a) young voters b)independents c) moderate/cross-over Republicans. And the problems is all the nastiness from the Clinton camp is starting to turn these people off. As for the independents and the moderate Republicans, I've heard from a number of them point-blank, they're ONLY switching over to vote for Obama NOT Clinton. We are NOT making this up to "threaten" the Clinton camp or anything, that's just the plain fact of the matter and we've been hearing this talk even before the primaries began. Needless to say, if the young get disenchanted with the ugly politics of these primaries, they have little patience and will find something else to do besides voting in November. So essentially, these are 3 groups of folks who could HELP Obama in November that even HE might not have in November because of the tone of the Dem primaries to date. Worse, if Hillary Clinton gains the nomination, not only does she not have these supporters of Obama's, she's not going to enjoy broad African-American support. Simply put, blacks are tired of having good Afr-Am leaders savaged with sort of vicious smears that the Clinton camp has been engaged in, particularly considering how the African-American community stood by the Clintons when they were getting savaged by the Republicans. And her attacks against Obama have long crossed the line which is why while Clinton this time last year was polling 70%+ support in the African-Am community, she has now reduced that to less than 10%. So count out a healthy chunk of the black vote because Afr-Ams are tired of being taken for granted and folks just "assuming" they're automatically going to vote for "whoever the Democrat is". Worse, it give the Republicans to make further inroads with black voters.
So yes, to extent, the tough fighting may be "helping" Obama, perhaps "toughening up" as you might suggest, but there is a certain point when that "help" turns to "hurt". And that's what we Obama supporters are seeing. Further to suggest the Republicans are going to come with worst as an excuse for Hillary's behavior is weak. McCain might decide NOT to run the typical slime fest Republicans have been known to do - note that the Republicans did not support negative campaigners like Romney this time around. The Republicans aren't stupid - they know they can only go so far given the indiscretions of W. However, if by her actions, Sen. Clinton keeps giving them further ammunition and license to hit Obama then she is creating a losing proposition for BOTH candidates - note that Obama has not gone nearly as negative against her so we REALLY don't know how well she will hold up against the vast Republican ammunition stockpile against her.

[rwilliams1961]

I posted before I read yours. I am sorry I did, because you put it much better than I did - and I could have saved my time and simply said "Excellent post."

[adamNsteve]

he still has to prove himself to me....

[mkjohn1]

Won't be forgiven by me.

[kinderworld]

You are wrong, I will not forgive Bill or Hillary and will not vote for her in November. It is enough that we had to defend Bill when he lied to the country, but enough is enough. Tired of enabling the Clintons' dysfunction.

[Duffs]

I'm an Obama supporter. I am not a Democrat. I will not vote if Hillary is on the ticket, even if just as a VP. I do not believe in "holding-my-nose-and-pulling-the-lever."

I do not support morally bankrupt, petulant, lying, children.

[Ozarks]

I admired Bill Clinton and did not appreciate the Ken Starr attacks. Now I am not so sure, maybe Ken Starr had a legitimate argument, especially now since Hillary is calling Obama a Ken Starr look alike just because he politely asked her about releasing Clinton's joint tax returns from 2000 thru 2007. She is not fighting for her political life anymore, she is fighting to continue the alleged "anointed" path as one of the chosen few. She even considers John McCain one of these chosen few of "royalty" and has declared that Obama is just too much of a commoner to "hold the throne". Goodby Hillary, your bus will leave town soon to never return.

[IndieGirl]

You are so right Mr. Zogby. I was so energized for both Clinton and Obama in the beginning of this race. I would have settled for either one. But now I am so sad for the party. I hope a miracle happens and all of this ends soon. Just look at the comments on this blog and see the divide. How sad. The race is ours to lose in November.

[purplehawk]

Precisely.

And who do we have to thank? Hillary Clinton.

[JavaCityGal]

James,

You mention a lot of good points about the high cost of Hilary wins. I used to be a big supporter of Bill Clinton, and always defended them to others while they were in the White House. I'll admit that I didn't have the highest opinion of Hillary -- only because I'm from New York and my family and friends think that she carpet bagged NY and hasn't delivered what she promised. But because I liked Bill so much, I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, and I did. I felt that both candidates would be great in the White House, and although I preferred Obama, if Hillary was the nominee, I would have proudly got behind her!

But that all changed a few months ago. I've witnessed with sickingy horror how the both of them have campaigned, the meanness, the hypocrisy, the polarizing, out right lies. First I completely turned against Hillary because of it.. I turned into one of those "anyone but Hillary" people -- I really didn't start out that way. Then watching Bill, I sadly had to let go of my nostaglic memory of the Clinton years. His legacy wasn't what I remembered after all. Who is this red faced mean angry man using the race card? So so sad and so unnecessary.

Not only may the Democratics go down for the count this election, but too so shall go the Clinton legacy in my mind and heart.

[marignymitch]

Update please. Counting primary and caucus votes, Obama takes Texas and expands delegate lead over Clinton.

[S1m0n]

I said at the start of the contest that If Obama wins, it can only be by greatly expanding the democratic party coalition. If Hillary wins, it will only be by shrinking the party down to little more than it's hard-core base. Actually, less than that, because she'll also have diven off much of the black vote.

Nothing has changed; the above observation still holds. What surprises me is the apparrent willingness of the party to choose the self-destructive option B.

[SShaw490]

That's a hell of an astute observation.

[mommadona]

Very astute.

Which to choose:

DLC - POLITICO MACHINA

DNC - PROGRESSIVE POPULOUS

Rahm and K-Street are rooting for McClinton.

Depends on what your "constituency" consists of.

[GhiaccioPronto]

by September 2003, ... (obama was) still largely unknown in Washington circles, but that changed the following month when Vernon Jordan, the well-known power broker and corporate board member who chaired Bill Clinton"s presidential transition team after the 1992 election, placed calls to roughly twenty of his friends and invited them to a fund-raiser at his home.That event marked his entry into a well-established Washington ritual"the gauntlet of fund-raising parties and meet-and-greets through which potential stars are vetted by fixers, donors, and lobbyists..............Other fund-raisers were soon organized"one at the Four Seasons Hotel, another at a Dupont Circle restaurant, yet another at the Clintons" home off Embassy Row.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

JORDAN, VERNON E JRWASHINGTON, DC 20036LAZARD, FRERES & COMPANY/SENIOR MAN Barack Obama (D)Senate - ILOBAMA 2010 INC - $2,000primary 07/07/06

JORDAN, VERNONWASHINGTON, DC 20036LAZARD FRERES & COMPANY Barack Obama (D)Senate - ILOBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC Won $2,000primary 10/23/03

[Doofus]

One might be concerned that Obama has won primaries in states that are and

are going to remain 'Red', whereas Clinton wins in more 'Blue' states. Here's

a SurveyUSA poll with maps that shows that Obama will do BETTER THAN Clinton

in Red states, and that either would beat McCain, although Obama does better.

'SurveyUSA polled 600 people in each of the 50 states to see who would win:

a Clinton-McCain matchup

a Obama-McCain Matchup

Obama wins a large number of red states, including North Dakota, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia. Clinton loses every state west of the Mississippi river except California, New Mexico, Minnesota, Hawaii, and Arkansas. But she makes up for it by winning the biggie: Florida, which Obama loses. ... Both of them beat McCain; he by 22 electoral votes and she by 14 electoral votes.' ...

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[Doofus]

If I'm reading the maps correctly,

States that Obama wins that Hillary would not: NH, MI, IA, ND, VA, CO, NV, OR, WA, NE (split)

States that Hillary wins that Obama would not: PA, WV, NJ, AK, FL

[Doofus]

Maps are at http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Mar07.html

[to1548]

Hillary wins the big states (California, New York, New H=Jersey, Mass., Ohio, Texas, Florida, Michigan, New Mexico etc....)

[neoprufrok]

Doesn't matter. Many of those states will be Blue no matter what. Obama wins the swing states - somehting that Clinton does not do.

[AnninCA]

I don't think he could even dream of winning Florida or Michigan now.

[anika]

he is going to lose PA a traditionally blue state to Mccain...