Hillary: Why can't Obama win big states?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-04-23 01:31pm

(CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton Wednesday said her much-needed victory in Pennsylvania raises fresh questions about Sen. Barack Obama's electability.

Both Democratic presidential candidates planned to stump in Indiana after Clinton's scored a decisive win in Pennsylvania Tuesday, beating Obama by 10 points.

With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, Clinton was leading Obama 55 percent to 45 percent.

With the win, Clinton will pick up 81 of Pennsylvania's 158 delegates, while Obama won 69, CNN estimates. Eight delegates have yet to be allocated.

Obama on Wednesday downplayed Clinton's win, saying "it's important for people to keep things in perspective."

"We have won the white, blue collar vote in a whole bunch of states ... and if we had a demographic problem in Pennsylvania, it was that it's an older state than a lot of states, and it is true that Sen. Clinton has some strong support among voters over 60," he said on Roland Martin's radio show.

Indiana and North Carolina hold primaries on May 6, the next date on the primary calendar in what has become a protracted and, at times, bruising fight for the Democratic nomination. Obama is leading in North Carolina, and it's a tight race in Indiana, according to recent polls.

Obama's campaign on Wednesday announced endorsements from 49 supporters of John Edwards. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator who dropped out of the Democratic presidential race in January, has yet to endorse a candidate.

Clinton Wednesday argued the "tide is turning" as a result of her victory Pennsylvania. Video Watch Clinton question Obama's appeal »

"I won that double-digit victory that everybody on TV said I had to win, and the voters of Pennsylvania clearly made their views known, that they think I would be the best president and the better candidate to go against Senator McCain," referring to the Republican presumptive presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Photo View photos from Pennsylvania »

"Clearly [Obama] outspent me again in Pennsylvania, 3 to 1, and we roared back with a tremendous grass-roots campaign and millions of people turning out to vote and favoring me by a big margin. ... The fair question is, if you can't win the states we have to win in the fall, maybe that says something about your general-election appeal," she said.

Clinton has scored wins in the large states of California, New York, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania as well as in the Florida primary, which violated Democratic party rules because it was held at the end of January.

Obama, however, has won more state primaries and caucuses than Clinton, and leads her in the overall delegate count as well as the popular vote, despite her win Tuesday night. Obama leads Clinton 1,719 to 1,586, CNN estimates. Call the races and see how the delegates add up »

Neither candidate can capture the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination with win in the remaining Democratic contests, meaning that the party's superdelegates will likely decide who gets the Democratic nomination.

Clinton and her backers have argued that the superdelegates should vote for her over Obama, despite his lead in the delegate count and the popular vote, because she is the more electable candidate in a general election.

Clinton won Tuesday by holding on to the core group of voters who have fueled her previous victories. She won a majority of female voters, voters over the age of 45 and white voters.

And, in a troubling sign for the Obama camp, only 50 percent of Pennsylvania voters who picked Clinton said they would vote for Obama if he was the Democratic nominee, while 26 percent said they would vote for McCain.

Nineteen percent of Clinton's Pennsylvania supporters said they would not vote in the fall if she was not the Democratic nominee.

Obama's inability to cut into Clinton's support among those groups may raise some concerns on whether he could win those groups if he became the Democrat's nominee in the fall.

Speaking to supporters in Evansville, Indiana, Tuesday night, Obama dismissed questions about his ability to cross cross racial, gender and generational boundaries.
advertisement

"We can continue to slice and dice this country ... or this time we can build on the movement we started in this campaign, a movement that's united Democrats, independents, Republicans, young, old, rich, poor, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight," he said. "Because one thing I know, from traveling 46 states this campaign season, is that we are not as divided as our politics suggest."

"Now it's up to you, Indiana. ... You can decide whether we're going to travel the same worn path or whether we will chart a new course that offers real hope for the future," the Illinois Democrat said.

Utterly predictible with her trouncing out the claim that she's more electable. I swear she's a fucking broken record at this point. Course, by the same token you could easily ask why Hillary can't win anything but the big states if she's as electable as she claims.

Post by **Edi** » 2008-04-23 01:40pm

The stupid bitch just doesn't get it that if she goes up against McCain in states like this, half the people who voted for her to keep Obama out will vote for McCain to keep her out. Meaning that all of the Republicans will vote McCain and quite a few of the more conservative Democrats as well, while a lot of Obama's people will just stay home and let her burn.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2008-04-23 01:48pm

Maybe I missed the memo, but why does winning a Democratic primary make you electable in the general election? "Hey, my opponent only got 47% of the democrats in Pennsylvania to vote for him! He'll never be able to carry the state in November!" That just doesn't make any sense.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2008-04-23 02:02pm

^ Especially because PA has a closed primary...and independents favor Obama. Only stupid people buy Clinton's logic.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-04-23 02:21pm

Notice how she either glosses over, or is completely clueless of, the fact that over 180,000 registered Republicans changed to Democrat in order to vote in the Pennsylvania primary. Which has been happening in a number of the states she and Obama have contended in.

I have to wonder if Hillary has any idea of the trap that's being laid for her if she's the one campaigning past Labour Day. Probably not. After all, she's "inevitable", isn't she...?

Post by **Surlethe** » 2008-04-23 02:56pm

Patrick Degan wrote:Notice how she either glosses over, or is completely clueless of, the fact that over 180,000 registered Republicans changed to Democrat in order to vote in the Pennsylvania primary. Which has been happening in a number of the states she and Obama have contended in.

I heard her lead in Indiana was cut down, and now she trails Obama by 5% or so; I guarantee you that is not what the election results are going to look like on the sixth, because Republicans are going to wholesale vote for Clinton in the open primary. I personally know several conservatives who are going to vote for Clinton in the primary, even though they would prefer Huckabee for President.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2008-04-23 03:15pm

Patrick Degan wrote:Notice how she either glosses over, or is completely clueless of, the fact that over 180,000 registered Republicans changed to Democrat in order to vote in the Pennsylvania primary. Which has been happening in a number of the states she and Obama have contended in.

I have to wonder if Hillary has any idea of the trap that's being laid for her if she's the one campaigning past Labour Day. Probably not. After all, she's "inevitable", isn't she...?

Looking at the numbers on CNN, she had won by about 215,000 votes. If the majority of them hadn't switch, it would've been a real damn close race by 35k at least.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2008-04-23 03:29pm

Soontir C'boath wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:Notice how she either glosses over, or is completely clueless of, the fact that over 180,000 registered Republicans changed to Democrat in order to vote in the Pennsylvania primary. Which has been happening in a number of the states she and Obama have contended in.

I have to wonder if Hillary has any idea of the trap that's being laid for her if she's the one campaigning past Labour Day. Probably not. After all, she's "inevitable", isn't she...?
Looking at the numbers on CNN, she had won by about 215,000 votes. If the majority of them hadn't switch, it would've been a real damn close race by 35k at least.

To be fair, the situation isn't that clear-cut. How many registered Republicans were switching to vote for Clinton because she's more conservative than Obama, and how many were switching because Obama's enticed them over, for example?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-04-23 03:30pm

Surlethe wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:Notice how she either glosses over, or is completely clueless of, the fact that over 180,000 registered Republicans changed to Democrat in order to vote in the Pennsylvania primary. Which has been happening in a number of the states she and Obama have contended in.
I heard her lead in Indiana was cut down, and now she trails Obama by 5% or so; I guarantee you that is not what the election results are going to look like on the sixth, because Republicans are going to wholesale vote for Clinton in the open primary. I personally know several conservatives who are going to vote for Clinton in the primary, even though they would prefer Huckabee for President.

A friend of mine who's a huge dittohead thinks Rush is playing with fire by advocating such voting with his 'Operation Chaos'.
McCain is certainly beatable, even by Hillary and my while my buddy doesn't like either Democrat, he fucking despises Hillary and would rather see Obama win than her.

I'm working on my own version of Operation Chaos with him and his wife to convince him to vote Obama in our primary race*.

*Indiana's primary is an 'open' primary.
I've already voted for Obama.

That NOS Guy · Post by **That NOS Guy** » 2008-04-23 03:39pm

Surlethe wrote: To be fair, the situation isn't that clear-cut. How many registered Republicans were switching to vote for Clinton because she's more conservative than Obama, and how many were switching because Obama's enticed them over, for example?

Pretty much, I switched my reg from Republican to Democrat to vote for Obama.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-04-23 03:44pm

Surlethe wrote: To be fair, the situation isn't that clear-cut. How many registered Republicans were switching to vote for Clinton because she's more conservative than Obama, and how many were switching because Obama's enticed them over, for example?

The article gives a pretty good indication of this actually.

And, in a troubling sign for the Obama camp, only 50 percent of Pennsylvania voters who picked Clinton said they would vote for Obama if he was the Democratic nominee, while 26 percent said they would vote for McCain.

It's probably not too much of a stretch to figure that the ones who said they'd vote for McCain in the general election were voting to screw over Obama or otherwise make sure he didn't get the nomination.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2008-04-23 04:17pm

My question is, are the Republican switch-hitters voting for Clinton because they are frightened of the prospect of an Obama presidency, or because they think Clinton is more vulnerable in the general election?

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2008-04-23 04:20pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:My question is, are the Republican switch-hitters voting for Clinton because they are frightened of the prospect of an Obama presidency, or because they think Clinton is more vulnerable in the general election?

Why not a mix of both? Obama doesn't have Hillary's negative baggage and is far more vocal about making major changes in the status quo, which is the perennial fear of conservative white males.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-04-23 04:56pm

Obama really needs to hit back at Hillary's "big state" argument, by saying something like "These so-called 'small states' are tired of being told that they don't matter. All Americans matter."

Losonti Tokash · Post by **Losonti Tokash** » 2008-04-23 05:07pm

Since when is Texas a small state?

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-04-23 05:10pm

Although obviously this is primary race (and saying you won in a primary race means something else entirely than a general election race), I wouldn't entirely dismiss the point. California and New York aren't that impressive - they've both gone Democratic in the past in the GE anyways - but Pennsylvania, which is a swing state in this election, is. Particularly since she drew much of her support from the type of voters that went running to Ronald Reagan in the past - the so-called "Reagan Democrats."

Masami von Weizegger · Post by **Masami von Weizegger** » 2008-04-23 05:11pm

If Obama can't win big states, then why is Hillary having so much trouble beating the guy who can't win big states? Wow, I'm sure impressed with Hillary's campaign where she brags about how she's second to the guy who can't win the big states.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-04-23 05:43pm

Losonti Tokash wrote:Since when is Texas a small state?

Shh! The media decided Hillary won Texas! Don't let your facts try and confuse the issue!!!

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2008-04-23 05:51pm

Darth Wong wrote:Obama really needs to hit back at Hillary's "big state" argument, by saying something like "These so-called 'small states' are tired of being told that they don't matter. All Americans matter."

Take a page from her playbook: "Hillary thinks only Americans from "real states," "big states," and "states that matter" are the only Americans who count." And then call on her to rescind her attack on small-state America.

Post by **Cairber** » 2008-04-23 05:52pm

Hillary's campaign is now claiming they have the lead in votes cast.

EN ROUTE TO INDIANA -- The new spin we are hearing from the Clinton campaign today is that more people have now cast votes for Clinton than Obama, when you include MI and FL AND exclude the caucuses which Obama has dominated. (See earlier post on the popular vote logic.)

The campaign also said, fundraising continues to grow, now at $3.5 million since last night and rising with the campaign claiming that 80 percent of these donations are from first-time contributors.

*** UPDATE *** The Clinton campaign adds that Michigan and Florida are counted in their numbers and so are Obama's caucuses.

But, as First Read crunches the numbers, we ask: Is the Clinton campaign giving Obama zero votes in Michigan since his name wasn't on the ballot? Because if Clinton gets the approximately 328,000 in Michigan and Obama were given credit for the 237,000-plus "uncommitted" votes, she still wouldn't have enough votes to overtake his current popular vote lead even with Florida factored in. But if she were to take the state 328,000 to 0 she'd take the popular vote lead.

*** UPDATE 2 *** The campaign confirms that this is, in fact, how they have figured the math. Their view, roughly, is that Clinton got 328,000 votes that were certified; Obama got none. Of course, Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. And that's their point exactly.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/