alas, this comes from the obama camp: Iowa Governor Chet Culver, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, and Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill just sent out this memo:
In an attempt to minimize the significance of Barack Obama’s success in winning more than twice as many states as Senator Clinton, her campaign’s supporters have attempted to diminish the importance of the states where Senator Obama has prevailed.
Senator Obama has scored important victories in each of our states – states that will play a decisive role in deciding whether or not John McCain will be given the chance to enter the White House and extend George Bush’s failed policies for another 4 years.
In each of the 30 primaries and caucuses that Obama has now won, including Mississippi yesterday, he’s shown the ability to motivate Democrats to turn out at the polls, win the support of blue collar voters in suburban and rural communities and attract the support of Independents and Republicans. That’s the kind of candidate Democrats need to nominate to beat John McCain in November, and it’s the kind of leader America needs to bring to Washington the kind of change we can believe in.
The Clinton campaign’s argument ignores relevant facts about how significant a role these states played in determining the outcome of the presidential race in 2004. In fact, Obama has won 7 of 9 of the biggest states that were close in the 2004 presidential election and have already selected delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention.
More than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. It’s also worth noting that polls in four of these five states show that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.
Obama Winning Vast Majority of Big States that Were Close in 2004
Nine of the largest states that were decided by a margin of 8 points or less in 2004 have already held a caucus or a primary to select delegates to the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver. Obama has won seven of those nine contests – including four that Bush won.
Listed below is a chart ranking how closely the largest states were decided during the 2004 presidential election. see it here.
Clinton Totals Padded by States Where Obama Does Best Against McCain
The Clinton campaign’s misleading argument about the importance of her performance in the largest states actually highlights the limits of her appeal and her ability to win the general election.
To turn the Clinton argument around, more than 55% of her popular vote total and nearly half of her pledged delegates have come in just five states. In four of them, polls show that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton. In the fifth, Texas, Clinton admitted that she didn’t expect it to be “in the general election calculation.”
Listed below is a chart (see it here) outlining the votes and the pledged delegates Clinton collected in the five states as a percentage of the votes and delegates she’s collected in the 43 contests so far (not including Mississippi). The column on the far right highlights Obama’s general election strength in the general election in each of these states.
here's my spin on it: Bogus Big States Argument
Obama’s Pennsylvania Strategy
It’s Still Over for Clinton
Clinton’s Deliberate Race Baiting
Who Can Beat McCain?
