MyDD :: Obama, Clinton, and the "blue states"

Obama, Clinton, and the "blue states"

by itsthemedia, Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:34:44 PM EST

In another thread, lambros wrote:

>> Obama hasn't persuaded another blue state to support him but his own [Lambros did not specify, but usually IL and HI are considered "home states" for Obama. In the full text of his comment, lambros also mentioned MO, which he characterized as a "near tie".]

To which politcsmatters unhelpfully replied:

> What reality do you live in? [Although s/he does not say so directly, I am assuming that politicsmatters used this nasty rhetorical question to assert that lambros is incorrect.]

I like to think I live in the real reality, so I decided to find out who is right. To see who is right, I just needed to answer two questions:

Which states are the blue ones?
Which states has Obama won?

For (1), I decided to use the interactive EV map on http://www.270towin.com/ . The "2008 swing states" view shows states as blue (Dem), red (Rep), or tan (swing) according to some criteria that the site authors applied. Their choices of swing states for this cycle look pretty reasonable to me, although some may go bluer or redder depending on who the Dems nominate. I've included EV for each.

Blue 2008
CA(55), DC(3), DE(3), HI(4), MA(12), MD(10), ME(4), MI(17), MN(10), NY(31), OR(7), RI(4), VT(3), WA(11)

This is only one way to define what is a "blue state", so if you prefer another way, by all means, write your own diary.

For (2) I consulted CNN.com. I decided not to make any value judgements such as whether a caucus "counts", or whether a primary in a state whose delegates' status is currently undetermined "counts". Again, if you prefer another methodology, please leave a (polite) comment, or write your own diary. Via caucus or primary, Clinton and Obama may be argued to have won these blue states:

Obama blue states:
DC(3), DE(3), HI(4), MD(10), ME(4), MN(10), VT(3), WA(11) = 48

Clinton blue states:
CA(55), MA(12), MI(17), NY(31), RI(4) = 119

Blue states left to vote:
OR(7)

So politcsmatters, you were right (while also rude). Sorry lambros, you were wrong.

Tags: Obama, Clinton, blue states (all tags)

Permalink :: 33 Comments :: Post a Comment

Blue states (2.00 / 1)

You may be right that Hillary has won more blue states in the primary, but this does not translate into an argument for Hillary to be our nominee in the general. Which would you prefer, a candidate that is less appealing in a swing state where Dems cannot afford to lose many votes (Hillary), or a candidate that is less appealing in blue states where we can easily afford to lose a few voters (Obama)?

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:43:41 PM EST

Re: Blue states (none / 0)

> You may be right that Hillary has won more blue states in the primary

I did not make that argument. In fact, by my count, Obama has won 8 to Clinton's 5. Clinton has won more blue states by EV than Obama, 119-48. I just thought the question was an interesting one, and set out to see who was right.

> Which would you prefer
Your electability argument might make a good diary of your own. It needs some analysis and fleshing out before I could comment on it. As for my preference, I prefer to vote for the candidate who I think would make the best President. Of the ones left in the race, I think that is Clinton.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:10:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hear... (none / 0)

As for my preference, I prefer to vote for the candidate who I think would make the best President. Of the ones left in the race, I think that is Clinton.

Gravel hasn't dropped out yet either. His healthcare plan is far better than Hillary's.

Have you considered him?

by kraant on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:17:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama, Clinton, and the... (none / 0)

Obama needs to win the Kerry 04 states (which he will). Then add Colorado, Iowa, and one southern state (possible in states with high AA population), and he becomes the next president of these United States.

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:47:29 PM EST

Re: Obama, Clinton, and the... (none / 0)

Virginia. He has a solid shot here.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:54:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama, Clinton, and the... (none / 0)

Yes, maybe Virginia, if a lot of things go right. I don't think there is a chance in any of the deep south states this year. Obama polled close in GA for awhile, but is fading.

I think lizardbox is a bit overconfident to assume all the Kerry states are in the bag though. PA, NJ look like tough sledding for Obama. MA looks surprisingly weak for him too, but I would be shocked if MA did not go Dem in the end.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama, Clinton, and the... (none / 0)

But then he is behind in PA,NJ and MI
He is tied in MA with McCain

by indus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:20:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

No but it does suggest that BO may be weak and perhaps beatable in some blue states. IMHO i dont think BO can afford to lose PA or MI. If he does it will be a long night on nov 4th. This really is the issue. BO is weak with traditional older core democrats. Maybe by Aug this will change but remember kerry won indies but lost to Bush because he only got 88% or so of dems. BO can not imho win if he gets less than 90% of dems and lets just say he and his crowd are pissing off lots of these voters right now.

david

by giusd on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:52:37 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

"he and his crowd are pissing off lots of these voters right now."

Seriously dude, what the hell are you talking about? I'm really starting to take offense to this narrative.

There is one thing that matters here. Who ran the best campaign and ended up with the most delegates. If it were about electability, then shit, why the hell go through the process?

Senator Clinton won the bigger states because people have known who she is since 1992. There is absolutely nothing more to it. As hard as it may be for Clinton (and Obama) supporters to believe, most people do not follow the political process as much as we do.

When we have a nominee, most democrats will vote for the nominee. Those who don't, are either stupid, sexist, or racist. In which case it won't be the candidate's fault. And when this is the case, it is our duty to fight for the damn presidency, not talk about "electability" when our candidate is losing.

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:59:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Part of the process is super delegates which consider electability and that 1 million more democrats have voted from Hillary than Obama.

by DTaylor on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Senator Clinton won the bigger states because people have known who she is since 1992.

What does that even mean?
Moreover, how does knowing who Clinton was since 1992 translate into votes in the bigger states and not the smaller ones? Are you saying people in smaller states have not known her since 1992?
Your logic escapes me.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:39:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Great post. Lets see a northern liberal running an antiwar campaign while troops are still in combat and barely wins the popular vote with dems. McGoverns supporters smeared any dem that tried to run a more moderate course. McGovern supporters were right and everyone else was wrong and they were going to take over the WH. And after the primaries there was not much effort at unity because there was only one true path and that was immediate withdraw.

As i recall that was McGovern but funny it sounds alot like BO. McGovern got clocked and really clocked with working class voters.

david

by giusd on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:40:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So you want McCain as trhe Dem nominee? (none / 0)

Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012

by benmasel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:53:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you want McCain as trhe Dem nominee? (none / 0)

Funny i dont remember saying that. I would perfer that Clinton be the nominee? I guess to me that seems obvious.

david

by giusd on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:11:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you want McCain as trhe Dem nominee? (none / 0)

Wow, that argument is too flimsy to be called a strawman. Vaporman? Oatmealman?

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:18:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

true.... i was there...

by jentwisl on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:40:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

When will the name-calling and insults stop??? (none / 0)

Those who don't, are either stupid, sexist, or racist.

That's what I am because I don't support BO??? Come on. Grow up!

Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"

by JHL on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:59:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When will the name-calling and insults stop??? (none / 0)

You misunderstood. In that phrase I was referring to anyone not willing to vote for the eventual nominee, be it Clinton or Obama.

And I wish I needed to grow up cause those were the days.

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:40:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Maybe the smugly superior attitude is what pisses Clinton voters off. Look at what you wrote.

Senator Clinton won the bigger states because people have known who she is since 1992. There is absolutely nothing more to it. As hard as it may be for Clinton (and Obama) supporters to believe, most people do not follow the political process as much as we do.

To Clinton voters, that reads, "Clinton voters are ignorant fools who don't know who they are voting for." Whether or not you actually believe that, you are not making friends in the Clinton camp by spewing it here.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:05:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess Clinton voters can't read then (2.00 / 0)

The fact is HRC starts with a basic support of about 55% in about every state becuase it is a DEMOCRATIC electorate and she has very high name recognition and decent favorabilties amoung democrats. So when people are asked who they support between someone they know HRC, and someone they dont BHO they go with the person they know. Now in smaller states its easier to eat into this lead becuase air time is very cheap and you can do retail politics and use rallies very effectivly. you can't do that in CA, NY, etc. esp. not when you don;t have much time to win people over. So to say HRC's name recognition helped her in big states is simply a statement of fact not some kind of dog whisitle Elitist jab.

by wil5013 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:54:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess Clinton voters can't read then (none / 0)

So you are now changing the statement to "Clinton voters are ignorant, illiterate fools." Is that your final answer? Maybe if you try again, you can alienate a few more allies.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:12:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Newsflash (none / 0)

Obama will not lose PA. There is no correlation between winning primaries and winning the same states in general elections. The facts have yet to back up such a stupid claim. If this was the case, Kerry would be President. I would really like it if people stopped making such an ignorant argument. Please name the last time MA and NJ voted for a Republican for President. The polls showed the same thing in NJ for Kerry early on. Geesh.

by kristannab on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:29:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Newsflash (none / 0)

So we have your word on it? ;-)

Seriously though, I think the implied correlation is more between LOSING states in the primary and losing the some states in the general. It might be hard to come up with real world examples, because it is a long time since either party had a nominee who lost so many big states in the primary.

Maybe it makes more sense to think about it in terms of demographics. The same demographics that make states like MA, PA, NJ hard for Obama in the primary will make them that much harder in the GE. Not impossible IMHO, but also not to be dismissed as shoe-ins, the way lizardbox did.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:49:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Worry about California (none / 0)

Worry about California. Two groups he has troubles with, Latinos and Asians, make up 48.3% of the population. McCain has an opportunity to make big inroads here.

by DaleA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:58:32 PM EST

Re: Worry about California (none / 0)

Worry about Pennsylvania, too.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/keystone-democr.html

The link above shows only 53% of Pennsylvania Clinton supporters will vote for Obama in the fall; 19% !!! will cross over and vote for McCain!
Icebox doesn't care about electability. Neither did I when worked to nominate McGovern in 1972. The ensuing landslide taught me that electability is as important as ideology. By the way, I myself will probably cross over.

by JoePittsburgh on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:56:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Asians and McCain (none / 0)

McCain referred to Asian Americans as gooks. I quote Senator McCain: "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

Now he tries to rationalize his comments by saying that he was describing his captors in Vietnam alone--not the whole race. But, seriously, if people find out the type of racially charged language McCain uses you think Asians are gonna vote for him. I think not.

See the story:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/ho ngop.shtml

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:48:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Worry about California (none / 0)

Stop worrying. California is not going red. Um remember when Bush tried to "challenge" Gore in California and he was considered moderate when he was first runnning? Yeah we see how that went. Look, these are machine states(NJ, MA, CA, NY, etc). There is no way in hell they are going red it just isn't happening and people need to stop drinking the Clinton camp Kool Aid because the Clintons know damn well that this isn't true. You also fail to realize that both Barack Obama and HRC got double the votes combined of John McCain in California. It ain't happening.

by kristannab on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:32:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama, (none / 0)

Well "stupid, sexist, or racist" said like a real democract. And i am really starting to take offense to that narrative. Because it is comments like this that drive away democrats. yes I am getting tired of offensive comments like this that drive dems to McCain. I am really sick and tired of losing every damn GE and right now BO is pushing dems to McCain. And blaming HRC does not cut it she will not be on the ticket BO will.

A short read of the article in the washington post says it all and outlines how traditional dems who are put off by this and are more than willing to vote for McCain. And this is well supported by polling. So how about BO supporters stop accussing RHC of being a racist and lier?????? That is a Narrative i am really sick of. The one we hear every day from the BO campaign and dude people are listening and it is going to cost us the WH.

And one last thing i thought it was about winning in nov. My bad.

david

by giusd on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:16:57 PM EST

Re: Obama, (none / 0)

JJjr said HRC cried before NH but did shead one tear for Katina. What did BO say today "HRC is just trying to tear me down?. Now that is really funny when his campaign todays is calling her a lier about her trip to Bosnia. Ooh my bad. Said she was being untruthful. We all know untruthful and lier are really two different words.

david

by giusd on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:34:26 PM EST

Re: Obama, (none / 0)

> context of the entire talking point was that she got worked up during an appearance, and not during other catastrophes such as katrina and the iraq war

I think he said she got emotional about her appearance - that is - about the way she looked. The question she was answering was one of those odd constituent twofers - something like who does your hair, and how do you keep going under all this pressure. She pretty much ignored the part about her hair or whatever, and answered the part about what keeps her going. She got a little verklempt (sp?) during the answer, which many candidates, male and female, have done in such moments. The media jumped on it and blew it up into some sort of breakdown.

JJ Jr's remark was not a direct accusation of racism. But for all the talk about dog-whistle attacks in this campaign, surely his remarks reach that level at least.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:38:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama, (none / 0)

OK. But will you agree he was being kind of a jerk?

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:53:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: California (none / 0)

Bush spent 20 million plus to win California both times and lost by 11% both times.

SUSA shows that Obama only slightly underperforms Hillary with Asians/Hispanics.

Once McCain's gooks comment gets direct-mailed to every Asian household in the state by 527s he will have no chance at the Asian vote I assure you.

by DemGenii on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:00:21 PM EST

Re: California (none / 0)

Yeah, I am not too worried about CA either, at this point. Hope it stays that way though, because that sucker is a 110 EV swing if it goes the wrong way. Ouch.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:56:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.