Absolutely. Beyond this, why does it matter if he can win big states or not (ignoring the fact that'll he'll have won 5 of the 13 largest states)? Why does no one ask "why can't Hillary win the 30+ small and medium size states she's lost?"
Uh, take a look at the county-by-county breakdown in battleground states like Texas and Ohio, and you'll see who plays well in the red-state demographic areas. That's Clinton territory. Obama has done well in the Midwestern states based on the caucus system setup (which inherently favors him) as well as having the campaign resources to actually campaign and set up organizations. That'll work in a primary, and especially in a caucus, but won't in a general election against Republicans.
The early general election matchup polls suggest otherwise so far. Obama has been competitive in Colorado, Virginia, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, and Iowa. What red states does Clinton put into play? Arkansas is the only one I can see.
Obama loses ANOTHER big state tonight. What went wrong? He outspent Hillary by 4-1 in PA, yet still gets whipped... Has his balloon popped? This race needs to go to the convention. Period.
http://www.surveyusa.com/50StateTracking.html Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, West Virginia. Oklahoma and Kentucky in single digits.
Why is this the logic? Is Obama conceding that he can't get whites or seniors to vote for him in a Midwestern primary?
Are you sure that's the right link? It seems to show a bunch of job approval polls and a bunch of random polls from 2005-2007. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any reason any of those states except Arkansas and Florida would come into play in a general election with Hillary/McCain. Hillary's general strategy would be the Kerry/Gore strategy - dominate the blue states and win one of FL/OH. Obama would have narrower margins in some of the states Hillary would win more comfortably, but would have more states in play by most measures. That's why elected officials from red states vastly support Obama - he's better for all their down ballot races because of the new voter aspect that he brings in. Those traditional red states can't be won with tradition Dems - they need an army of new voters. On the flipside, his strength isn't as much with the traditional base - which is why he doesn't perform as well in the bluest of states.
looking like a big win for Hillary. California, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas....the primaries are all going one way...
I'll link to the BBS thread -- it's Survey USA numbers. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=144170 I'm not sure what "most measures" are, and I disagree with your assessment. I think Hillary has brought numerous new voters to the party as well -- the rural Democrat, socially conservative voters that have been lost to the GOP this decade. I think Hillary and Obama would have very similar strategies -- the only difference being that whereas Obama might try to flip states like Colorado and Virginia, Clinton would try to flip states like Tennessee and Florida. I'm not sure how you can say Obama's strength isn't the traditional for Democrats -- that's exactly why he's winning this primary. It's been documented numerous times that in a winner take all system, this race would be much closer. But because of the delegate system, which rewards areas that voted heavily for Kerry in the last election, Obama has a commanding lead. It's why Hillary won't net many delegates, if any, tonight if she wins by 5-6 points. Obama has the advantage, as he usually does, because his strength is coming from the traditional Dem areas which have more delegates.
^ if Hilary has such appeal in red states then why did the deep south and western & mountain states all go for BO?
So the Dems are going to elect a candidate that just won in states that will most likely go Republican in the Fall and used a caucus system? And all of this was pre-scrutiny by the press and pre-Snob-ama comments and Jeremiah Wright? Oh wow, the libs have gotten themselves into one fine mess in a year that should be a blowout win for them... Tonight is looking like a blowout folks... If the Dem race was winner-take-all, Hillary would have blown out Snob-ama in pledged delegates... think about that... and Wright... and Rezko... and Ayers... and his San Francisco values... and Rashidi... and finish that thought with a mental image of Reverend Wright dry humping his podium in front of children in a church.
I'm not referring to the Pacific states like Cali, I'm not referring to Blue states like Cali - I am referring to your Wyomings, your Montanas, your Alaskas - Are you telling me that Barack won by means of the massive black vote in those areas? If so, then I will assess you with a shiny pair of LOLLERBLADES, with neon green and pink wheels. The claim being made by the feline is that Hilary has more appeal in red states.... This claim is ludicrous - insofar as she has had some hard luck there, not suprising given her incredible negatives there.
For the most part, resources and the caucus system. There were also certain demographic advantages in a few of the deep south states (blacks), but by and large, Obama had a better ground operation due to his financial resources. In addition, the caucus system used in most of those western & mountain states inherently plays to Obama's base. Caucuses punish those who might work night hours (routinely, less educated voters) as well as seniors who aren't particularly mobile. Both are Hillary's base. On the flip side, they reward those high IQ and college type voters who have nights free, better transportation and easy access to speak and persuade in groups as well as experience doing that. That's Obama's base. Using caucus results as a barometer for how things will go in November isn't a good idea. I hope Dems don't learn that the hard way.
SO he won them because he was a better campaigner? I'm hard pressed to view this as a negative. More importantly, I have yet to see the flipside of this equation - your contention that Hilary is better suited to win these states. She, by contrast, ran an unorganized underfunded campaign in these states where her greatest asset (being a Clinton) is seen as a profound negative.
No, he won those states because he campaigned, period. In a majority of those February states, the Clinton campaign was ridiculously unorganized and unprepared and in many cases didn't even have a ground operation. My contention is that by looking at the county-by-county breakdowns in states where both have spent significant time campaigning (Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania), it's clear what Hillary's base is and it's clear what Obama's base is. Now, you could look at it and say rural, small town Texas voters are very different than rural Kansas voters, or something like that. You could argue that to explain the discrepancy. However, the more logical and plausible scenario -- at least in my opinion -- is that the difference in rural voting behavior in Texas vs. states like Kansas and Nebraska is that Hillary actually campaigned and ran an actual ground operation in Texas, as opposed to pretending as though the state didn't exist in the case of many of those states you listed. Is that to praise Clinton? Of course not. Her strategy was terrible, and it's why she's almost certain to lose the nomination. But in the general election -- whether it's Obama vs. McCain or Clinton vs. McCain -- there won't be the same level of disinterest from a candidate. Both campaigns will fight with contrasting ideas, and in states where both have done that, Hillary's base has been rural areas that mirror those of many red states. I think it's a much safer bet. The caucus system is also a factor, but I already addressed that.
