Pattern of Clinton's support tonight shows she is more electable than Obama.

[jsamuel]

Clinton won the rural areas in every state while Obama won the cities. The places the Democrats lose every November is in the rural areas.

[MADem]

1. Obama did well in caucuses, but in primaries where his people were insisting

that he'd crush Clinton, he got served.

There are no caucuses for general elections. It's one person, one ballot, one voting booth, and a ballot box.

[Maven]

18. Exactly. The general election is not a caucus.

[AX10]

19. 100% correct.

Caucus's are attended by the party elite. Elections are the way the masses express whom they support.
Clinton carried the night in the elections. Elections are what will decide the next POTUS, not caucus's.

[jlake]

2. You noticed that too?

[cali]

3. links? because that's not what I heard on NPR

Obama also won the male vote by 2 to 1. That's a much bigger margin than her win with the female vote. And discounting the entrenched hatred of Hillary and her complete inability to pull in indies is just dumb.

[tabasco]

4. LMAO.

Have another beer.

[BootinUp]

7. Take a look at MO and OK and TN and get back to us.

[Botany]

5. hahahaha

"while Obama won the cities"

North Dakota, Iowa, South Carolina, Minnesota, Idaho, Utah, Kansas,
Alabama, & Georgia no rural voters there.

Wonder how he did down state in Illinois?

[nonconformist]

8. Check the results by county. nt

[Botany]

11. I will be right on that

:rofl:

[nonconformist]

21. Ok then, remain ignorant that she gets rural votes and he gets city votes in these states. nt

[Renew Deal]

6. She lost most of the states

So I don't see it.

[SoxFan]

9. The teeming metropolis

Fargo
Bismark
Topeka
Fairbanks
Boise
Pocatello

[Botany]

24. What about Sitka, Ely, International Falls, and Emporia

:rofl:

[krkaufman]

28. ha!!! actually caused me to howl. thx. n/t

[oviedodem]

10. Clinton folks, stop!! Don't deny that hillary does have issues

with independents and men. In addition, the Clintons have lost some of the AA vote (not all of it but some).

I will continue to say it; McCain will be a BIG problem for her in the GE.

[Botany]

16. Stay in Iraq for 100 years

That will be an easy sell

[MADem]

26. War Without End McCain vs. Out in a Hundred Days Clinton?

And if Clinton is the General Winner, you think Obama won't campaign for her with an eye towards again trying for the prize at a future date? Or take VP if Richardson turns it down?

People forget that JFK and LBJ weren't as close as lovers, but they made a good team, they both KNEW they made a good team, and they managed to keep the snarling behind closed doors.

Where's the AA vote going in the general? To McCain? To Hundred Year War Man? Come on.

[krkaufman]

29. Hillary's GE issues have nothing to do with Dems. She'll do great with Dems.

The battleground will be independents and malleable Republicans.

[MADem]

33. She'll take independents too. It's the same shit as before, really, only with a war in the mix.

It's the Economy, Stupid! is likely to come to the fore once again. The money we're dumping into War Without End becomes more significant when we need those assets to grow our own economy. And Republicans become Democrats in a hurry when those fuckers hit the unemployment line or they're in danger of foreclosure--funny how that works.

[krkaufman]

40. Okie-doke. n/t

[DesEtoiles]

12. pffft.

[TheWraith]

13. You've got that backwards. Obama won the most red and purple states. NT

[DesEtoiles]

14. uh - no Republicans are voting in the Dem primaries. Duh.

[JimGinPA]

15. You Can't Even Spell "Pattern"

Much less recognize one.:eyes:

[jackson_dem]

27. JSamuel is one of the first tier voices on the netroots

[krkaufman]

31. Well, that voice isn't too reliable, in my book, if the OP is an example of their "analysis."

Without even looking at their data, Obama has done quite well in rural areas in other states (this we know)... and he's done MUCH better than Hillary at pulling-in independents and Republicans in the open primaries. jsamuel's basic premise doesn't fly.

Hillary's support in the Dem party isn't in question. Either of our candidates will do well in terms of getting Dem votes. The battle will be over independents and Republicans.

---

Were I inclined to review jsamuel's analysis, I expect I'd also find that they didn't factor for early/absentee voters.

[truebrit71]

17. Yeah if only Democratic chicks vote....

...if men, republicans and independents vote she gets her ass kicked...and yet strangely those, PLUS Democratic chicks,vote for Obama...

Hmmm? Whom should be our nominee again?

[milkyway]

20. As wrong as you can get. Obama won lily white rural states. Hillary wins are mostly blue states,

but doesn't show the ability to expand the map. I could run as the Dem candidate in NY, NJ, Mass, Cali and win in November.

Very generally, Obama does better in cities and country, Hillary does better in suburbs (which is about half the country).

[ShadowLiberal]

22. But democrats were the only people voting, and some independents

Unless one candidate gains a lot of support from independents, and/or republicans it's hard to paint a primary/caucus win as proof that they're more electable then someone else.

[jsamuel]

23. most of the states that were primaries were open

[goodgd_yall]

25. I think it's the other way around.

[Honeycombe8]

30. Clinton won the huge cities of North Dakota and Utah? Wow! I didn't know that.

Well, shuck my corn! Tell that Obama guy to drop out quick! It's all over!

hahahahahaha.

Obama won by larger margins, and in more states, than Clinton. He won from the north and south, east and west.

Spin it like you want. But 3 weeks ago she was practically crowned already. Her trajectory is downward.

[BeyondGeography]

32. You're wrong

He always does well in rural areas when he actually has time to campaign there. When they both actively went after rural votes in Nevada, for instance, he destroyed her:

==Yet there is one major social divide, almost as important in its way as race itself, that Obama has already proved he can bridge, though the significance of his success has gone largely unnoticed. To see it clearly, you have to look closely at the results of the Nevada caucuses, which Obama narrowly lost to Clinton because he failed to carry Clark County, site of Nevada's only big metropolitan city, Las Vegas, with its enormous population of Hispanic voters. But in more rural counties he beat Clinton decisively - 63% to her 37% in Elko, 51% to 34% in Humboldt, 50% to 40% in Washoe (the missing percentages belong to John Edwards). I've been to those counties, their miles of lonely roads where you can drive for half an hour before encountering another vehicle, their scattered ranches and isolated towns, their seasonal creeks marked by lines of spindly cottonwood trees, the overwhelmingly Caucasian cast of their people. Out there in the mountains, sagebrush and high desert, Obama carried the day by far greater margins than his overall loss of the popular vote to Clinton across the state, and came out of the caucuses with one more delegate than she did.

Remember that in 2004 every American city with a population over 500,000 voted Democrat, and the Republicans won by taking the countryside and the outer suburbs. The blue state/red state division is better expressed in terms of the persistent conflicts between the big cities and their rural hinterlands, over land use, water rights and environmental, class and cultural issues. Red states are simply those where the country can outvote the urban centres, while in blue states the opposite is true. The perception that America has liberal coasts and a conservative interior merely reflects the fact that the coastal states are home to the largest metropolitan areas with the most electoral muscle. Last time around, for instance, Bush easily won the heartland state of Missouri, but was as crushingly defeated by Kerry in St Louis as he was in the cities of New York, Boston, San Francisco and Seattle.

So Obama's victory over Clinton in rural Nevada says something important about his ability as the apostle of national reconciliation. To win against Clinton in Elko County (black population: 0.8%), he had to convert not only white Democrats, but a large number of independents and people who had voted Republican until caucus day; a feat he pulled off with dazzling facility. Any Democrat nominee who can do that, deep in Republican country, is likely to gain the presidency; and Obama has proved that he can. Clinton, laden with the moral, cultural and political baggage of the 1990s, is likely to fare as badly in Elko County as Kerry did in 2004, when he collected just 20% of the vote...==

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2249501,00.html

[calteacherguy]

34. Not in a General Election against McCain.

Not by a longshot.

[nonconformist]

36. A great deal of Obama's Indy and moderate Republican support will jump ship to McCain.

So, yes.

[calteacherguy]

38. Yes, they will if Hillary is the nominee. nt

[nonconformist]

39. Don't you get it?

Those voters aren't going to stick with Obama. Meanwhile, they're over-inflating his numbers NOW.

And not all of that Republican support is genuine, I'll guarantee you that.

[margotb822]

35. Each candidate is debatable

No matter who we nominate, the GOP will try to rip them apart. And they will use divisive, emotional platforms. Right now, we need to focus on the issues and keep those in the front of people's minds. McCain is not moderate. Clinton or Obama are much more moderate than any Republican candidate. I don't think tonight proved anything, except that Obama has the support of African Americans in the south and Clinton won the Latino vote. We need to concentrate on getting our voters to the polls in November, no matter who the candidate is.

[krkaufman]

37. Really?

Does the premise hold if the data is expanded beyond "tonight"? Were all states and all districts from tonight included in the "analysis"? Did the "analysis" generate separate estimates based on early/absentee voters versus election day voters? How did the "analysis" correct for how independents and Republicans would vote in the general election? Did the "analysis" account for the violent weather today? :)

---

Obama has done quite well in rural areas in previous states (this we know, thank you)... and he's done MUCH better than Sen. Clinton at pulling-in independents and Republicans in the open primaries. The OP's basic premise doesn't fly.

Hillary's support in the Democratic Party isn't in question. Either of our candidates will do well in terms of getting Democratic votes. The battle will be over independents and Republicans, and Obama has thus far demonstrated better proficiency at doing so. (Noting that either candidate may self-destruct before November.)