Hillary supporters: Do you live in one of those insignificant fly-over states that Obma won?

[npincus]

You know, one of the states that "don't really need a president" (according to Bill Clinton)- you know, one that Obama won. OR, do you live in one of the more important BIG states who need a president more than the other ones- you know, those fly-over ones. Seems to me the Hillary campaign keeps trying to diminish the value of the states she did not win in favor of the (IMPORTANT) states that she won... like somehow BIG state voters matter more. That will be her argument to the superdelegates, if she doesn't catch up to Obama in delegates and popular vote.

So I have to ask HRC supporters from 'Obama' states: do your delegates count as much as those in 'Hillary' states, and should superdelegates give them the same weight? Or should superdelegates weight them differently due to geographic location?

[papau]

1. Do you mean the ones that always vote for the GOP so a primary win is pointless?

[pnwmom]

2. It's not the size of the state as much as how the electoral votes are likely

to go in the fall.

Unfortunately, in some of the states Obama has won, there will be twice as many Rethugs out voting as Dems, and -- as it's winner take all -- the few electoral votes that there are (it's not based on land mass, but on population) will ALL go to the Rethug. So supposing he wins Wyoming in the primary? There is virtually no chance that he will take that Rethug state in November. And even if he managed that miracle, there are few electoral votes. So what good does it do?

Only the swing states will matter -- and mine is one of them. But even in WA his popularity is over-stated. The caucus gave him more than a 2 to 1 margin in delegates. BUT in the more democratic primary (which was a "beauty contest" only), he just edged Clinton out.

[calico1]

4. Very true. I wish more people would understand that. n/t

[calico1]

3. I live in CT...

Obama won here. And yes, the presidency can be had without our paltry 7 electoral votes.

And yes, as far as winning the Presidency California and New York are a hell of a lot more important to win than Nebraska or Idaho. No offense to people of the latter states but it's the truth. I live in CT and realize that though it tends to be blue, it isn't all that important in the big picture. I would rather the Democratic candidate lose CT and win NY.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Every vote is equally important

But it happens to be fact that there are a lot more voters in Ohio than in North Dakota. Of course every state matters, but so does every vote. I live in upstate New York. My county has less than two hundred thousand residents. Manhatten has millions of residents. Both counties matter but Manhatten has a lot more citizens of New York than my county does.

It is a fact that Hillary Clinton won more votes in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island on Tuesday night than Barack Obama won in Vermont plus the eleven straight victories he won before Tuesday night. There is a sound reason why Ohio gets more electoral votes than Vermont.

[joshcryer]

8. Read my sigline. Those small state wins equate a disproportionate delegate distribution.

In other words, the states that *could* vote for a woman, did. The ones that couldn't, didn't.

[loyalsister]

6. Missouri is a state Hillary would like to forget

Two major cities and a female senator who endorsed Obama. Also another state that "picks the winner." It has for the past 100 years with the exception of Adlai Stephenson.

[MojoMojoMojo]

7. Ohio and Florida Matter the most ,Hillary rules both.