NYT, pg1: Democrats in a Fight to Define ‘Winner’: Overstate own advantage, understate other's gains

[DeepModem Mom]

Political Memo
Democrats in a Fight to Define ‘Winner’
By PATRICK HEALY
Published: March 12, 2008

With the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination likely to go on for weeks or months, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are battling to define what it means to be winning — and, in some instances, they are overstating their own advantage and understating the gains of the other....Mr. Obama is emphasizing the breadth of his appeal — his lead in the popular vote and in pledged delegates and his victories in states that Democrats have trouble carrying in general elections. Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, has focused on her victories in states with the most Electoral College votes, like Ohio and California, and her strength among groups like women, blue-collar workers and Hispanics.

As the two candidates seek to cut each other down to size, the greatest flash point between them is over the “big state” victories that have largely gone to Mrs. Clinton. While she claims that those victories make her the stronger contender in November, Mr. Obama points to the greater number of states in his column....The Clinton campaign’s argument that Mrs. Clinton has been winning in Electoral College battlegrounds falls short somewhat because of Mr. Obama’s victory in a bellwether state, Missouri, and his success in states that Democratic officials believe they may have a chance to carry this fall. These include Virginia and Colorado, which have been increasingly electing Democrats to statewide offices, as well as traditional swing states like Iowa....

As another counterargument, Mr. Obama has been toting up his victories to suggest a striking range of popularity in states that usually fall outside the Democratic electoral map. Yet though these states have helped give him a lead in pledged delegates, it appears far from likely that he would be able to carry some of them in a general election....

Look deeper, the Obama campaign contends, and there is another argument in his favor in traditionally non-Democratic states: He has drawn more votes from independents and Republicans than Mrs. Clinton has. But it is unclear whether independents and some Republicans in swing states or Republican-leaning states would choose him over Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee. At the same time, Mr. Obama has argued that Mrs. Clinton’s victories in closely contested states like Arizona, Nevada and Ohio were no slight against him. Yet he has not shown that he can win as much support from blue-collar workers and Hispanics as she has.

In conversations with superdelegates, Obama advisers have cast Mrs. Clinton as a divisive figure who would struggle to win swing states and be a drag on other Democratic candidates. That argument has yet to be proved at the ballot box, though some political analysts and state officials say that they believe Mrs. Clinton could wound the ticket in some states, because polls have shown her to be a polarizing figure....Clinton advisers question whether Mr. Obama has a real base of support in the swing states Mrs. Clinton won, arguing that he has relied on upper-income liberals, college-educated voters and students, groups that, the Clinton team argues, will support any Democratic nominee. That said, many of these voters have appeared far more passionate about Mr. Obama than Mrs. Clinton....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/us/politics/12dems.html?ex=1362974400&en=c03a0d2b81cbf5d1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss