Winning big states doesn't mean Hillary will carry those states in the GE

[Fire_brand]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23591347/

But there’s just one fallacy to these dueling arguments that hasn’t received much attention: Recent history shows that winning a state in the primary season — no matter its importance on the map — doesn’t guarantee success in the general election.

In 2004, for example, John Kerry won early Democratic contests in Iowa, Arizona, and Missouri, but he fell short in all three states when pitted against George W. Bush.

In 1992, Bill Clinton captured primaries in Florida and Texas, but lost those states in the general election. And in 1984 — in a primary that has drawn parallels to the current Democratic race — Walter Mondale secured the Democratic nomination over Gary Hart in part by winning large industrial states like Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania.

But in the end, he wound up winning just one state against Ronald Reagan: his home state of Minnesota.

The opposite also is true. There are numerous examples of candidates losing states during the primaries but then going on to win them in the general election. Bill Clinton, for instance, captured Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire in his 1992 contest against George H.W. Bush. But he lost all three in the primaries.

The reason for this primary-general election disconnect? It’s pretty simple, say political pollsters and analysts: The voters who turn out in a primary are very different from those who turn out in the general.

“I think it is dangerous to generalize from primary to general election,” says Democratic pollster Mark Mellman.

“A swing voter in the general election is a different person than a swing voter in a primary,” he adds, explaining that while Clinton might win in a state among white men ages 45 to 59 or that Obama might win independents, they are doing so only among those participating in that Democratic primary.

University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato put it another way on Tuesday, telling MSNBC-TV that about 40 million voters would participate in this year's Democratic and Republican nominating contests. That’s compared, he said, with more than 120 million who would likely vote in the general election.

[LSparkle]

1. Or that ONLY Hillary could carry those states in the G.E.

Obama will win EVERY one of those big states in the G.E. if he's the
nominee. That's what's so maddening about her argument ... Most of
the states she won are ones that will go Democratic almost without
question (NY, CA); the ones we need to win in order to expand our
majority are precisely the ones Obama has won.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Thank You! First K/R.

[SoonerPride]

3. .....or that Illinois, Texas, Virginia etc. are "small" states

The whole campaign is lunacy.

[Lucinda]

4. The "big state" discussion isn't really about who might win them in the GE

The talking heads all know a unified Dem party wins, whichever candidate we nominate.

IMO what it's really about is Hillary making the pitch to the super delegates, that all things being relatively equal, she won the big states that dems always need, has the strongest core Dem support, so she is more deserving of the nomination.

Obama is making the argument that he's bringing in young voters and crossovers and winning more states.