Clinton's "Big State" Myth: Why Barack Obama Remains the Most Electable Democrat This Fall
The Clinton Campaign's post March 4th message is to forget about the delegate count and nominate Hillary because she can win the big states Democrats need in November. That argument simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Here's why:
1) Most of the "Big States" she has won are not battleground states in the fall. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California are solid blue states where Obama would do as well or better than Clinton in a general election against McCain.
2) Of the states she's won so far, the big exception to this rule is Ohio. Ohio is in fact a critical battleground state where Hillary has demonstrated that she has a leg up among lower income whites and older voters. But the polling also shows that in a general election, Barack offsets this advantage in Ohio among young voters and college-educated independents. In a McCain-Clinton match up the later group could gravitate heavily to McCain in Ohio.
In an Ohio general election, Obama's ability to attract independents and mobilize young and minority voters will trump Clinton's advantages among non-college whites -- a group that will break heavily for either Barack or Hillary against the "free trade" McCain.
Just remember, in Ohio right now, "national security" is a job. The economy and trade -- not "national security" -- will almost certainly continue to be the overriding issues for non-college whites in Ohio this November.
3) Obama puts in play a panoply of states where Clinton would have a much tougher time. Obama could potentially win Virginia (13 electoral votes), Missouri (11 electoral votes) and even Mississippi (whose population is 40% African American -- 6 electoral votes). He would be considerably more competitive than Clinton in other battleground states like Colorado (9 electoral votes), Iowa (7 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Minnesota (10 electoral votes) and Michigan (17 electoral votes). The same goes for New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) -- a state where McCain will work hard to woo independents among whom Obama did much better than Clinton in this year's primary.
4) Even in states where Clinton could make a case for some advantages relative to Obama, these "advantages" are far from certain. Take Florida where she might assert an advantage among Latinos. Florida also has up to 500,000 newly enfranchised ex-felons -- many of whom are African American. The problem with these new voters is mobilization, not persuasion. Getting them registered and voting will be hard. Obama would obviously turn out many more African American mobilizable voters than Clinton. And when it comes to Latino voters, Obama's clear record on immigration contrasts well with McCain who has thrown Latino immigration reform aspirations under the bus in order to pander to his party's right wing.
5) Obama has the one quality that allows him to simultaneously motivate mobilizable base voters and appeal to persuadable independents -- the ability to inspire. This quality allows him to broaden the appeal of his candidacy to swing voters. At the same time it allows him to expand the electorate with new young and African American voters who otherwise simply wouldn't vote. Clinton is the anti-inspiration candidate. She will have a much harder time both expanding the electorate and appealing to swing voters. Obama's ability to inspire -- by itself -- makes him a much stronger general election candidate.
6) Finally, let's remember that the base of the Republican Party -- cultural conservatives -- is not so wild about McCain. They are accepting McCain with about as much enthusiasm as children take cough medicine. They know they need him, but they really aren't happy about it. The one thing that could energize the Republican base is their inveterate hatred for Hillary Clinton. Clinton would mobilize right-wing base voters the same way that hatred for Bush motivated Democrats in 2006. Why should we help galvanize the Republican base by nominating Hillary Clinton when we have another great choice?
All of these factors are born out in the consistent survey results that show Obama polls six to ten points better than Clinton against John McCain.
Clinton will have a difficult to impossible time winning the pledged delegate battle. Her only path to the nomination is convincing Super Delegates that she is the most electable. That dog won't hunt.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the new book Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win. The book is available at Amazon.com.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Our analysis posted for some time on HuffPo empirically demonstrates exactly the opposite of the anecdotal and wishful thinking points Creamer lays out. We have discussed for some time that NJ, CT and other states will be in play with an Obama nominee that will won hands down by Clinton. Creamer's bias ignores two additional battleground states that Hillary has won and will win in the general. Obama loses both of the famous FL and of MI.
Whatever you feel about FL and MI, they are in play and big swing states for the general regardless of the DNC intent to disenfranchise them.
Our analysis demonstrates that Obama loses OH to McCain with Hillary wins it. You neglect to account that the general winner will be a center left or center right candidate there. Hillary has shown she will get the center voter, Reagan Republicans, white men. These folks will flip to McCain without question. Add to that the Coal industry and other entrenched republican influences in OH opposite less young and college-educated voters as a percentage of the population it is an impossible conjecture Obama will win over Hillary. Even if you take the chance, that Obama wins squeaks by, Hillary wins OH big.
We feel that Obama takes MO, IA and puts in play KS and WI. He loses MI (Thanks DNC), CO, MS and VA. Along with the other big states loses, Obama can barely make up even one big state by cobbling together some purple states. In addition, Hillary wins AK, TN, CO and NM. Obama loses all.
FL is a perfect state for Clinton to take, older, Jewish, Security voters and Latinos. Many in this demo are from NY. These entire voter blocks mentioned vote AGAINST Obama and FOR Hillary. (Thank you race baiting in SC thus losing the Hispanic vote and Move On ensures that Obama loses all center ground that are predisposed to vote for Clinton.
Finally disenfranchising these voters makes it a loser with Obama since he is not fighting for them to be seated.
While Obama’s independent voter block does exist, but is way overstated as a percentage of the population, along with the younger vote. While in small states this influence can be large, in larger states it diminishes significantly. For example, the overriding demo in WI was simply the fact that WI is next to IL and vote alike, just like NY and FL. Obama did not win over and white voters anywhere else except in WI. The overriding demo of IL influence supersedes the segment demo. This was proven in OH. No demo flipped, WI was not indicative of OH. What is PROVEN is that Clinton held her base.
The inspirational and anti-inspirational stuff is hogwash for anyone over 35 years old. The Obama fatigue and unknowns are starting to come out. This information will be magnified by the Pubs in the general. He will be framed as the most liberal senator supported by the militant black segment of the population. Add this to disentrancing MI and of all places FL, the Dems lose any moral high ground on the corruption argument that wins against the Pubs.
Finally, conservatives of all ilk will never vote for Obama over McCain. They will vote for Clinton over McCain. Obama is too new and unknown to the thinking person and Truman and even Nixon demonstrated the imperative of being more center than extreme left or right to win this type of election.
You have a lot of subjective language in your post, like potential could, etc, and you point to some biased national polls to justify your position. The polls have been consistently incorrect in this election because they measure opinion and not action.
Just as the people will be inspired by Obama, they will vote for the action and trust they have in Clinton. Clinton is clearly the most electable in the general because the DNC continues to have an obvious blind spot.
These are elections not caucuses and the Electoral College dictates who wins. This is not a myth when you remember the last two general elections.
"Finally, conservatives of all ilk will never vote for Obama over McCain. They will vote for Clinton over McCain."
Man, what are YOU smokin'??? The right-wingers have an obsessive hatred of the Clintons going back 16 years. They'd vote for Vladimir Putin sooner than they'd vote for Hillary.
.Thank you for the comment. The conventional wisdom you speak of is not applicable to the point of the post. Nowhere is it said that right wingers will go for Clinton. The point that is made and the data does back it up is that Reagan Republicans who voted overwhelmingly Republican will come to Clinton’s position, especially on security, economy and Foreign Relation issues. Many don’t care for McCain but would vote for McCain over Obama. Clinton is their first choice and then McCain in that order. This is also holding true with Hispanic voters and even moderate states that normally go Democrat like CT, PA and NJ.
Thank you Mr. Creamer for your very accurate and comprehensive destruction of the myth.
The main stream media, primarily NBC and MSNBC, have been pushing this myth for quite a while and no one questions them despite the obvious fallacies.
Seriously, please STFU about electability.
Electability is what got the Democrats John Kerry as a presidential candidate in 2004. See how well that worked out? Might it have been nicer to have someone like Howard Dean, however unelectable he may have appeared in Jan. 2004, go up against W. in that election? I think so.
The reasoning that goes into these electability arguments is the same reasoning that's going to get us telecom immunity in the FISA revision bill. The Dems in power are calculating just how far they can piss of the base in the interest of maintaining a "tough on terror" bullshit veneer so as to better remain electable in general elections. It's no longer about doing what's right. It's about doing what is politically expedient. When did that become the highest ideal of political office?
Don't vote for the candidate you think best appeals to your neighbor.
VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE THAT BEST APPEALS TO YOU!!!
And so the pissed off progressive base will leave and vote in droves for Nader if Clinton continues to lie and steal the nomination. And you will end up with President McCain.
I for one have already left. And whether I get war-monger McCain or war-monger Hillary, I'm not impressed. Obama talks a better talk, but even he's not above threatening Pakistan. Furthermore, I'm not convinced he will actually make the right choice to get the hell out of Iraq as quickly as possible. Another four years in Iraq wasn't too long for him a few debates ago. http://www
What has electability gotten us in this election so far? A woman who voted for the war and won't apologize or renounce her decision. A man who isn't sure how he would have voted had he seen the intelligence and who nevertheless voted to continue funding the war once he got to the Senate.
The opposition right now differs only in degree, not in substance.
Right you are. I've always thought primaries were a waste of time when the media anoints someone immediately after New Hampshire or South Carolina and then everyone else drops out of the race because they can't compete financially.
I vote in Missouri and it was exciting to actually get to vote before it was all over.
I spoke with someone that lives in Kentucky. They didn't know why they never get to vote in a primary. I told them they do get to vote and it will by May 3rd. I suspect that in the past it was not even in the local news when they had their primary because it was over and done with well before they got their chance.
That's exactly why I wonder why we don't hear tons of people asking why we can't hold all state primaries on ONE DAY, not spread them all over the calendar. I think the decision made would be much more fair.
"But the polling also shows that in a general election, Barack offsets this advantage in Ohio among young voters and college-educated independen
With that statement in mind, another thing to consider regarding the voting this past Tuesday is it was Spring Break week and many of the young voters are in Florida or somewhere warm right now. College students are notorious for not planning ahead and many of them may not have filled out absentee ballots before they left for their vacations. Just a thought,
Just more Clinton bashing, North Dakota , Kansas, Wyoming, those states should not count because Democrats will not win them anyway.
ALL CLINTONIANS PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE ON THE MESSIAH
http://dal
Good work cakelady
Read this article.
Most interesting that Emil Jones Jr. pushed for Obama's name to be on the 26 bills he "sponsored" in that one year.
He took credit for them much to the chagrin of Illinois lawmakers who had fought for years to get those bills done anly to see someone being bred for "bigger" things taking credit.
That really is a good look into the politics of Obama. Thank you.
This is the kind of logic that keeps the Democrats from winning -- we canNOT win with the same states we always carry. Without some new states on our side, we lose again. DUH!!! Why is that so hard to understand. We can carry states like Virginia and Nevada with Obama. We can't carry those states with Clinton. The states that Clinton has won will vote Democratic anyway. How many times do we have to tell you people. Hillary Clinton = DEFEAT!!!!
Clinton & Obama are two extremely talented candidates who agree on virtually everything. Both generate a tremendous amount of excitement among their supporters. I think a unity ticket that creates history TWICE would be virtually unstoppable.
Hillary Haters - Give it a rest!
Obama Worshippers (No, he's not the messiah) - Give it a rest!
Normal Democrats, countless Independents, and I daresay many foreign leaders, would love to see a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket.
Governor Dean, please get on the stick and make this happen!
I would recoil nauseously if Barak sold himself so short... by taking her on as a VP running-mate.
The whole point of this momentum is to disentrench the old ways... which Hill just can't avoid. She is the poster child for the entrenched.
I believe that Barak has more wisdom than to drag her along on his shirt tails... with any more prominence than any of the rest.
Rather than drag him into a Hippie/Con fight... why not give-up on the geriadvocates and bring them kicking and screaming along for the ride.
Perfectly said, LBKN.
I hope he she doesn't ask him to be vice president, it would really drag down her image as a hard worker and a realist, and his past will become more attack fodder for the boys waiting behind the billboard on their Rove-a-cycles.
Obama hasn't changed any old ways and has no real plans to.
His entire campaign is based on the same old tired BLACK RACISM. The same old tired "Affirmative Action" BS.
Is Affirmative Action really still necessary when Oprah is worth $2.5 BILLION? Yeah, she is REALLY freekin OPPRESSED.
And Obama and his wife with Harvard Law degrees?
If Obama really wanted to overthrow the OLD ways, he would be running on a NON-RACIST platform. He would not be getting 90% of the black vote because of PROMISES that he is making in broom closets.
Obama not beholden to any lobbies? HA! How about the BLACK lobby? All of those states where he gets 90% of the black vote come with a PRICE!
As far as WISDOM goes, if Obama had ANY wisdom WHATSOEVER, he would drop the Presidential campaign, which is DOOMED TO FAILURE, and sign on as VP for 8 years.
With that EXPERIENCE under his belt, he could walk into the White House in 2016.
But he is too ARROGANT. He is like an audacious 10-year-old who thinks that he knows more than his mommy. Who does he think that HE is that he can walk into Washington and tell us that our entire government should be CHANGED according to his infinite, 10-year-old wisdom?
Obama doesn't know diddly-squat. He's a pie-in-the-sky University of Chicago college professor living in a dream world. He spent 15 years as a HACK Chicago politician and probably has more skeletons in his closet than the local graveyard.
Obama IS the OLD way! He is just a brilliant CON ARTIST.
I agree he doesn't need her she needs him. She wants to win so bad she thinks he would be willing to share a ticket with someone who put him down while at the same time she was praising McCain. I am an Obama supporter but I would rather see him lose the nomination to her rather than share a ticket with her. This is just another way for her to try and manipulate the nomination. Her supporters are hoping for them to share a ticket I don't think too many Obama supporters feel the same way.
How can two people be vice-president, Bill and Hill?? It wouldn't work at all. Hillary can go back to the senate and become majority leader. Harry Reid won't be a hard act to follow.
I would not vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket and I can't imagine Obama wishing to run with a Clinton either on the top or bottom of the ticket as it would belie everything he has said about changing the climate in Washington. Besides, he would need a vice presidential candidate with TRUE foreign policy credentials on his ticket.
I have observed this election contest and the Clinton campaign seems to be employing some real underhanded tactics against Obama. I see why she can be divisive.
However this process is fairly new to me and I am not really aware of the Clinton/Republican Party history. Why as this blogger stated above the "inverterate hatred". Why is it so deep seated?
Please if someone could fill me in, give me a little history lesson, I would appreciate it.
Thanks.
I don't think even republicans can tell you...I think it has something to do with the fact the HRC was so involved in the administration - but she pushed health care hard (including alienating House Dems) in 1994 and it cost the Dems the house and senate for 10 years
The Brady Bill handed the House to the Repugs in '94 - The NRA and their surrogates came out in droves - Allan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment in Bellevue, WA raised a ton to defeat Foley and others - All because of the much needed, but despised by the Gun Nuts, Brady Bill - Quit hawking the myth of the health care backlash.
During the health care debacle, Hillary Clinton totally alienated the Democratic Congress with her arrogant, secret, holier than thou approach to the process. Watching her now, acting like she is entitled to the nomination and basically demanding to be anointed, I don't really think she has changed any.
The "inverterate hatred" exists because the right-wing always hated Bill Clinton, mainly because he was a winner. They despised him so much that he was hunted throughout his two terms with sex scandals, financial impropriety (Whitewater), and even murder (Vince Foster's confirmed suicide). Of course, pretty much nothing was ever proven except that he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, but that was enough for the wingnuts to smell blood and they moved for impeachment. Yes, it's hard to believe that a President could be impeached for receiving what we learned to be a b.j. in the Oval Office, but only in America...
As far as Robert Creamer's post goes....yo
The right wing also hates Bill Clinton because he stole many of their policies, forcing them to move to the extreme right to distinguish themselves from him.
What he said.
Bill Clinton committed the unpardonable (to Republicans) sin of beating an incumbent Republican president. The Repubs immediately set about digging up, or making up, everything they could find or manufacture to smear the Clintons with. The smears were elaborated upon, amplified and repeated endlessly by right-wing media until the Republicans came to believe them themselves. A self-feeding cycle of hate was set in motion.
Something I have to say about McCain. I am not sure how many times he has run President, but I know its been a few. Bush tore him apart on the Black baby issue, remember that, but McCain still stands behind Bush. I believe in forgiveness, but to trust Bush, please, where is McCain's character and dignity, he obviously doesn't have any. I heard Bush had lunch with him yesterday and served White House Hot Dogs.
McCain is 70 somes years old and he is the nominee for the Republican party. Look whom he had to run against, that is not a win. Look at the State of the Republican Party, it is shambles, because of Bush's Destruction of the Country and the Party. It took the lowest point for the Republicans in history, for McCain to win the nomination. Sorry folks but thats not a compliment to McCain, nor is it a real win for him. Think about it. Actually it is quite laughable. I kind of like the guy and would never disrespect him for what he went through in Vietnam, don't get me wrong I am would never vote for him. Can you imagine having to look at him for 4 years, the State of the Union speeches, Press Conferences, White House Lawn Speeches, Photo shoots, oh please, I can't take it any longer.
yes yes i am sure obama would do just as well as clinton in ohio in the general election. i mean he only lost it by 250,000 votes you guys are so stupid. cant you see that mccain will hit obama over the head the whole gen election with patriotism and comander and chief readiness. he will lose 45 states
I think you missed the memo...
Hillosephalasaurus is advocating that "Big States Matter"... which is directly opposed to where the DNC is wisely attempting to travel... "All States Matter".
The -sephalasaurus charts it's own course to Extinctual Irrelevance.
... and furthermor
Pace... during an epoch change... is vital to avoid extinction.
Please keep up...... or not.
" ... mccain will hit obama over the head the whole gen election with patriotism and comander and chief [sic] readiness.
And you think the Repukes wouldn't do the same to Hillary? They'll try to smear whoever the Democratic nominee is. That shouldn't even be a factor in Democrats' decision-making.
Lose 45 states??? You're joking, right? Running against a clone of the worst and most unpopular president in modern history, with the country still bogged down in the Iraq quagmire and the economy in the tank, the Democratic nominee should have a shot at WINNING 45 states.
Yeah it's quite entertaining to watch and listen to the Clinton spin after all this talk of the "big states" on March 4th, and "meet me in Ohio." After her nasty campaign tactics, mockery of Obama, comparing his change to Bush's change, claiming that even McCain has more experience to be in the WhiteHouse, and her fear ads, what do we have? Scored her 4 net delegates. The entire time Obama was winning state after state, 10 or 11 in a row, Clinton's "congratulation" or "concession" (two words apparently not in her vocabulary) speaches for those states, consisted of "oh those are small states," or "he was supposed to win those". Hilarious. It got me pondering. How my voting experience (being in one of those "small" states, Washington) had gone. I caucused for Obama, and the mere 49 people from my "small state" district were assigned 5 delegates. Just one more delegate than Clinton made up with her big wins in Texas and Ohio. And now that it looks more and more mathmatically impossible for her to win more delegates, she wants a "dream" ticket. And of course one "big state" win, netting 4 delegates, makes her the top choice. What a joke. As opposed to making these people, these votes irelevant, and putting more importance on where you "might" win, Obama said yesterday he's going to campaign hard in EVERY state, because EVERY state is important. And that is just one of many reasons he not only deserves the nomination, but he will win it.
35 years of experience being arrogant. That's our Hillary.
and obamas little state myth doesn't hold up to scrutiny either...
you have to have a mix to win....but the big states are most important for getting to the whitehouse
Any democrat will win NY or NJ, or MI. What is Obama picks Jim Webb and wins VA, or MS or one of the Carolina's that is the beauty of Sen Obama vs Sen Clinton. I believe HE has a chance. We fight it out in Ohio and Penn and Florida (likely losing FL), but we what if we pick up one or two 'red' states. I truly believe we can do that. I may be naive but people are hungary for the change Obama would bring.
!. That's not what the DNC thinks.
2. The big states are all important.
3. Misstatement. She didn't campain in most of them and there are no stupid caucuses in the general.
4. She already beat him in Florida. Neither campaigned; well I take that back, Obama bought some TV time there before the DNC clamped the state down.
5. I'm way more inspired by her than him and so is everyone I know around here.
6. Just because a cultural conservative republican votes for Obama in the primary, doesn't mean they'll follow suit in the general. There's no track record of republicans voting for Obama in the presidential election. He's never been in one.
Anything else?
I love these non-reply replies. You guys are getting more neocon everyday!
When did she win Florida? I think you may just be repeating what you heard her say after she found out that she needed Florida to win. Do some research too before you make blanket statements Obama paid for packaged ads that were to be run nationally, he did not purchase individual ads to run in Florida only it was a package deal. He was told that he could not just pull the Florida ads or prevent them from running the ads in Florida. You don't have to be inspired by either one to do a little fact finding first before repeating what either side wants you to know.
"There's no track record of republicans voting for Obama in the presidential election. He's never been in one."
What's the track record of Republicans voting for Hillary in a general election? We do know, however, that conservatives (and quite a few moderates) have a deep, fierce, intractable hatred of Hillary.
THANK YOU! I have been saying the same thing when the dupes come her to brag that she won the NY and CA primaries and it that means anything re the general election.
What I don't understand is why Democrats aren't more generally aware of how the Clintons operate. Their effort to "rebuild the party" by marginalizing the progressives (never mind that it was progressives who worked their butts off for the congressional victories in '06) first by getting Howard Dean fired, (thank GOD that didn't work for them); then getting enough of the newbies in Congress to vote for everything Bush wants that Bush gets everything he wants. .
People really ought to read the Taibbi article in Rolling Stone, which says pretty much the same thing that I was told by the chief aide to a long-time congressma
As for the progressives, the thinking was "who else will they vote for anyhow." And a decision was made to couch the whole thing in "centrism" and paint it as an effort to win votes from Independents and (maybe if they are lucky) from Republicans It would be dishonest to imply that the aide was critical of this behavior..
Of course, the "centrism" bullcrap breaks down when anyone looks at the public opinion figures for approval of this immoral war, but that doesn't stop the Clintons from pushing back at the progressives. It is WAY overdue for us to push back at them...at least it would be if so many Democratics in congress aren't going along with it.
This is the way they think they can take congress and keep it....by becoming more like Republicans but not go the whole way, the way that might make progressives form their own party. Of course, it also neutralizes the war as an issue and it ought to (but so far it hasn't) make people question exactly how much HC plans to do re healthcare. After all, she conveniently failed once (and for 15 years we haven't had any major efforts at universal healthcare), and --I am sure--that she doesn't get more in campaign contributions from big healthcare corporations than any other candidate, including Republicans, for no good reason.
It is simply amazing that people like Gloria Steinem don't inform themselves of the Machiavellian crap coming out of the Clintons' efforts to attain total power. She says it is harder for a white woman to get political traction than it is for a black man...utte
I don''t know what I am going to do with my vote. (not that it will matter much either way). Right now I am mourning the drift in the party towards Republican-light (and not all THAT light, either). I keep wondering whether four years of McCain could be any worse than 8 years more of Clintons. Seems to me that it is time for the Party, if it wants to remain the Democratic Party, to give the Clintons their final walking papers.
The Clintons are the most ethically-bereft Democratic politicians of my 60-year lifetime and that's saying a lot. Bill left the party a far meaner party after his presidency than before and I expect Hillary to continue the devolution if she ascends to the presidency, which is doubtful.
And she better not pull MI & FL out of her Pocket. Many state & Fed Dems will NOT remain in Office, possible Prison If No New Primary is Held and those delegates are awarded to Clinton. As a MI Prim voter I have Serious Quesitons regarding the validity of that election process- above and beyond the obvious tampering with the 'date change' Our State Dems will be held accountable for that easily foreseen response. Staged 'rebellion' to be used as an Ace in the Hole should Hillary need it . MI was handed to her on a silver paltter, honoring the preOrdained Crowning.T
One P.O'ed Dem MI'er
Robert right off the bat with item number one you are wrong. California went for Reagan twice and George H.W. Bush in 88. The dem governor feel prey to a republican instigated recall election and the republican terminator took power and has held it since. Although Arnold is a more moderate republican he is still a republican. Never under estimate the California Republican Party, and if Hillary Clinton is seen as being treated poorly by the Democratic party, the way she is now, many of her California supporters will go for McCain instead of Obama and that state could easily go Red. California loves loves loves Bill and HIllary Clinton. They remember how well Clinton treated California during his term in office. Los Angeles especially was helped dramatically by Clinton after the 94 earthquake. Obama doesn't have anywhere near the clout in California that Hillary has. Remember she won the state by 10 points.
California is a closed primary. Obama picks up way more than 10 points with independents and republicans alone. McCain is no Reagan or Bush I, nor is this California the same on of the 1980s. Get real. Obama would crush McCain in California by at least 20 points.
PA is a closed primary too. People must register by party 30 days before the election. I hope the Obama campaign is instructing people to do exactly that....In
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
