Okay. Since when has TEXAS been a crucial state for a DEMOCRATIC nominee?

[Barack_America]

Texas has not gone for the Democrat in a Presidential election since 1976.

Just because a state is "BIG" does not mean that it is in-play for the Democratic nominee.

Let's look at the swing states and who they've voted for. Y'all want your "crucial" states? Then look no further.

Swing states from 2004, with primary results from 2008:

1. Arizona: 10 Electoral votes..............Hillary by 9%
2. Arkansas: 6 Electoral votes.............Hillary by 44% (note: homestate)
3. Delaware: 3 Electoral votes.............Obama by 10%
4. Florida: 27 Electoral votes...............Hillary
5. Iowa: 7 Electoral votes...................Obama by 9%
6. Louisiana: 9 Electoral votes............Obama by 21%
7. Maine: 4 Electoral votes.................Obama by 19%
8. Michigan: 17 Electoral votes............Both candidates not on ballot
9. Minnesota: 10 Electoral votes..........Obama by 34%
10. Missouri: 11 Electoral votes...........Obama by 1%
11. Nevada: 5 Electoral votes................Hillary by 6%
12. New Hampshire: 4 Electoral votes.....Hillary by 2%
13. New Mexico: 5 Electoral votes..........Hillary by 1%
14. Ohio: 20 Electoral votes.................Hillary by 10%
15. Oregon: 7 Electoral votes................?
16. Pennsylvania: 21 Electoral votes.......?
17. Washington: 11 Electoral votes.........Obama by 37%
18. West Virginia: 5 Electoral votes........?
19. Wisconsin: 10 Electoral .................Obama by 17%

So far:

Hillary wins 7 swing states (8 if you give her MI) by an average of 10.3%. And that is GIVING her her homestate of Arkansas. If you included FL and MI that becomes an average of 11.6%

Obama wins 8 swing states by an average of 18.5%

What does that mean? That Hillary will have a much harder time winning Obama's swing states than he hers.


Let's also look at the states that Rasmussen is currently polling as "swing states" to see who wins over McCain.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_presidential_race_state_by_state_snapshot

Colorado:..........Obama +7%, Hillary -6%
Florida:............Obama -16%, Hillary -6%
Iowa:...............Obama +3%, Hillary -10%
Michigan:..........Obama +8%, Hillary ties
Minnesota:.........Obama +15%, Hillary -5%
Missouri:...........Obama -2%, Hillary -1%
Nevada:............Obama +12%, Hillary -9%
New Hampshire:..Obama +13%, Hillary +2%
New Jersey:........Obama -2%, Hillary +11%
New Mexico:........Obama ties, Hillary -13%
Ohio:................Obama -1%, Hillary -3%
Oregon:............Obama +9%, Hillary -3%
Pennsylvania:......Obama +10%, Hillary -2%
South Dakota:......Obama -10%, Hillary -12%
Virginia:............Obama -5%, Hillary -10%
Washington:........Obama -1%, Hillary +8%
Wisconsin:.........Obama +1%, Hillary -12%

Number of states that Hillary wins, but Obama loses: 2
Number of states that Obama wins, but Hillary loses: 7

I think that speaks for itself. Ladies and gentlemen, the strongest Democratic candidate has been decided.

Obama.

[lastknowngood]

1. It's not but NY CAL OH and Penn are and no Red states are.

n/t

[Barack_America]

3. Are NY or CA in danger of going red?

Also, look at the Rasmussen polls. BOTH Obama and Hillary lose Ohio (Hillary loses by a greater margin).
Obama wins PA, while Hillary loses it.

[Mooney]

7. NY and CA will not go red.

Not a chance.

[MadBadger]

2. Texas wil be an important state this primary season

I think the dems will run a close enough race to force McCain to spend resources there to make sure he hold on to TX, which I think he ultimately will

[Barack_America]

6. But should we be using Texas to determine our Democratic nominee...

...when neither will win there?

That's why I say it's all about the swing states...and Obama is winning more of them.

[zanne]

12. Agreed. We lose Texas no matter who wins the nomination. nt

[MadBadger]

I think the idea Hillary will do better in swing states just cuz she won in the primary is flawed

Just take a look at early polling out of states like Nevada, NH, MI NM. Obama wins the first three while Hillary loses them. And polling shows that Obama does better but they both win NM. And in the swing states that Obama wins, he doesnt conceded any to Hillary. He wins VA,CO,WI,IA,ND, and she doesnt win any of those.

[Mooney]

4. Isn't that funny?

The argument I hear over and over again is that Obama won't carry any of the states he won in the GE because they're going to vote Republican no matter what. So what does it matter then if Hillary won Texas? After all, it's just a red state that doesn't count because we won't win it.

[Barack_America]

10. Yep. In the end, it's up to swing states.

And Obama outperforms Hillary in almost all of them.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Good work. I'm baffled by the Fast Eddie argument that only a handful

of states really matter. Why do we allow 50 states to vote, then? Why not just scrap the whole primary process and tell the rest of America, YOU DON'T MATTER, unless you live in: NY, OH, CA, NJ? Just pick four or five states, let them decide for America, and be done with it. We could do this in a general election, too. You don't get representation through delegates unless you live in a state that's crowded. That's fair, right? Fuck Nebraska and Wyoming, these people are just stupid farmers and ranchers anyway.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. That is the failed DLC strategy. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

15. True--they are really clinging to it. The poster on Kos who said that

the Clintons and the DLC deliberately neglected the Dem party until it was barely breathing, only kept alive to aid the Clintons' political goals, was dead-on.

edit--this is why I refer to the Clintons as parasites, feeding off of, weakening, and destroying their host--the Democratic party. I think it's a perfect analogy.

[Barack_America]

16. Absolutely. Did you read "The Dean Legacy"

in The Nation?

It totally puts what's really at stake in this election into perspective.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/berman

[papau]

8. Louisiana is won by Obama in the general by 21% ?? - we both wish that were true

[Barack_America]

13. That is how much he won it in the PRIMARY.

Those are primary results. Louisiana is not listed in the Rasmussen poll as a "swing state".

[frazzled]

11. When does a 3% difference in a primary mean anything about GE electability there?

I think that's the pertinent question. Texas is much ado about nothing: essentially, it was pretty close to a tie there.

[Barack_America]

14. I was reacting to her mouthpieces going on and on about her Texas...

...and Ohio victories on the morning shows.

Well, guess what, she loses BOTH in a GE against McCain. They both do.

I'm just not really cool with Texas being used as an argument to determine the Democratic nominee just because it is "big".

[anonymous171]

17. Since Hillary "won" for a day.

Now it doesn't matter though.

[wileedog]

18. Given the last 7 years

I think Texas owes us a favor or two...

[depakid]

19. Counting caucus percentages is completely bogus

because they disenfranchise large percentages of the voters and skew results to candidates based on enthusiasm of a small group -rather than the preferences of the electorate as a whole.