***Another Lie Debunked*** Obama actually outperforms Clinton in the Big States***

[grantcart]

The last myth standing is that Hillary has outperformed Sen. Obama in the "big states that really count"

The only problem, is that with all most all the other Clintonian spin it is not true.


1)In the top Nine contested primaries to date Sen.Obama has outperformed Sen Clinton by 156,000 votes

Here they are:


State . . . . . Obama . . . . . . Clinton

California. . . .2,126,000 . . . . . . .2,553,000

Texas . . . . . .1,358,000 . . . . . . .1,459,000

New York. . . . .698,000 . . . . . . . 1,003,000

Illinois. . . . . 1,302,000 . . . . . . . .662,000

Ohio . . . . . . 982,000. . . . . . . 1,212,000

Gerogia. . . . . . 704,000 . . . . . . . 330,000

New Jersey. . . .492,000 . . . . . . . 603,000

Virginia . . . . . 627,000 . . . . . . . 350,000

Washington . . . 354,000 . . . . . . . 316,000


Total . . . . .8,643,000 . . . . . . . .8,487,000



2) One of the reasons for this is Clinton's relatively poor showing in her home state of New York where she got only 57% versus Sen. Obama's 65% in Illinois. This does not take into consideration that electoral questions still surround 80 districts with high African American population that recorded not a single vote for Obama.


quote
Human Error or Electoral Fraud?
The New York Times conducted a review of the unofficial results from the primary. They found that, among the city's 6,106 election districts participating, 80 districts did not record a single vote for Obama, including heavily black districts like Harlem, as well as districts next to others where Obama had very favorable results. City election officials were made aware of the problem, and are in the process of review the vote tallies. For example, in Harlem where Clinton led Obama 141 to 0, the current, uncommitted vote tally stands at 118 to 116, Clinton.<3>

Democratic leaders are blaming the discrepancies on "human error" due to weary election officials on primary day. According to ABC News, however, other candidates such as John Edwards did not have this problem; it seems to be almost exclusive to Obama.<4>
unquote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Democratic_primar...


This relatively poor performance by Senator Clinton with those that know her mirrors the fact that more senators endorse Senator h Obama's 15 leading Clinton's 13, despite the fact that she has had 25 years of interaction with these Senators to develop relationships.

3) It should also be noted that Clinton's results in the big states were heavily influenced by the very active assistance of local machines of Governor Ted Strickland in Ohio, Govenor Jon Corzine in New Jersey and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles who are all hoping for either Vice President considerations or major Cabinet positions in a second Clinton presidency.

In any case the myth of Clinton having a significant advantage over Obama in the big states is simply not true.


4) Let us recap once again where Sen Obama leads Sen Clinton

a) Delegates
b) Primaries
c) Caucuses
d) Money Raised
e) Donors
f) Votes from big states
g) Popular votes
h) Senator endorsements
i) Govenor endorsements
















http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_Union#List_o...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United...

[K Gardner]

1. Woops?? Excellent, Grant.. maybe we should mass email this to the SDs and the media.

[grantcart]

2. and to the Obama campaign

[K Gardner]

12. Yes.. they really need to get out in front of some of this garbage spin and get their

people on TV countering it FORCEFULLY, and not give up the battle of the airwaves to Hillary and her surrogates.

I've often wondered what would happen if Obama just sent out an email via his "list" of a million, asking them to just email the networks and ask for fair coverage. Could they handle up to a million emails? Would that kind of action turn the coverage like Hillary's threats have turned it toward her?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

104. yes everybody send this info to the media

[WCGreen]

3. All the more reason to support primaries in all parts of the country...

[berni_mccoy]

4. GREAT JOB! K&R

[grantcart]

21. thanks

[powergirl]

5. In the GE, Obama outperforms Clinton against McCain

Bottom line: this data shows that Obama has the best chance to defeat McCain. In the simulated match-ups he beats McCain 280 to 258 electoral votes nationwide, and is very close in several additional key states that could significantly boost his margin of victory.

Clinton beats McCain by 276 to 262 nationwide. But her margins in several key states are much thinner than Obama's and on balance, Obama substantially increases the number of states in play.

A couple of key results:

* Contrary to the "only Clinton can win big states" myth, Obama does exactly as well in Ohio against McCain as does Clinton. Each currently wins the state by 50% to 40%.

* Even though Obama lost the primary in California to Clinton, he polls 1% stronger in the general election survey than Clinton does against McCain.

* Obama wins nine states in the simulation that Hillary loses: Colorado, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Virginia, Iowa, North Dakota, New Hampshire. He also wins several electoral votes from Nebraska, which allocates delegates by congressional district.

* Hillary wins five states in the simulation that Obama loses: West Virginia, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida. But three of these five are heavily in play. In New Jersey he loses to McCain by less than one point in the poll. And in Florida, Obama polls within the margin of error (of four percentage points), losing the simulation 47% to 45%. The simulation shows him losing to McCain in Pennsylvania by 42% to 47%. Hillary wins 47% to 46% for McCain. But remember that Hillary is very well known in Pennsylvania and Obama is just beginning to campaign there.

* Clinton actually loses the big state of Michigan in the simulation. Obama wins.

* Hillary's performance in many key states is much weaker than Obama's. In Colorado, Obama polls eight points stronger than Clinton. He polls nine points stronger in Iowa, five points stronger in New Hampshire, eight in Washington, six in Oregon, seven in Virginia, 12 in Nebraska, three in New Mexico.

* And, of course, the survey does not reflect either the fact that Obama does better as people get to know him, or that his inspirational style expands the electorate through the participation by brand new motivated voters.

* In fact, If Obama overcame small deficits in Florida and New Jersey he would clobber McCain 322 to 216 electoral votes.

If the Clinton campaign is going to convince "superdelegates" to swing her way, these survey results show that they're going to have to come up with rationale other than "electability."

Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/the-clinto...

[grantcart]

9. It is a futile game to play at this time

But some will try - its so long before the final election a lot can happen






http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php

[powergirl]

25. I agree with the OP. Why are you cussing me over the information in the article?

Please read the information in the article. And there are many other polls which show Obama has the better chance to win the GE. Many democrats when polled say this. Why are you resorting to profanity when I posted an article? Why is that so offensive to you?

[SoCalDem]

95. Why? because...

some HRC people are so insistent that she is entitled to be president, they have lost the ability to notice facts..

Just because she put up with a shitty husband, moved to a state where she could become senator & set the stage for her presidency..and then campaign for it for 7 1/2 years..she will NOT be denied..no matter haow many people she has to run down on the way.. The really odd thing is that after planning it so long, she did not plan from A-Z..she stopped at B....and then went into panic mode and started flinging shit everywhich way to Sunday.. (not what I want in a president)

Any criticism of her is automatically sexist, but she and her minions can (and DO) say terrible things about BHO and then scream like petulant toddlers when he dares to respond.

He was supposed to "wait his turn", and he didn't..and now even though he's ahead and HAS been since the start, he's still only being offered a seat at the back of the bus..and expected to be thankful.

[Kukesa]

6. Kick! n/t

[Tresalisa]

7. Excellent job!

When I click on your posts here, I know I'm going to get good info amongst the usual drivel and hysteria. Keep up the good work!



Edited for a big ol' along with a rec.

[Lisa0825]

8. Great post!

K&R

[Pirate Smile]

10. Interesting.

[tammywammy]

11. Excellent post

recommended

[ellacott]

13. Great post

I agree that it should be distributed to other site and even the Obama campaign.

[Political Heretic]

14. What's is with all this excellent post stuff? This is ridiculous spin, and there's way better ways

to support Obama.

You throw in Virginia and Georgia into a list of "big states" in which obama won by a disporportionate amount in with a list of key general election states that he didn't win and somehow make the argument that Obama "outperforms?" Common. This is the kind of stuff that makes us look like punks.

Calling Hillary's 57% (that's huge) win in New York a "relatively poor performance" is ridiculous, and comparing it to Obama's illinois win is meaningless - two completely separate states with completely different voter contexts.

If I were you, I would write an entire post about election fraud - that's where there are real questions that really deserve an answer.

Meanwhile, Obama is the best candidate for the nomination because he leads in pledged delegates, leads in the popular vote, has one the most states INCLUDING some key swing states, and has the most money to campaign in the general. He will have no trouble winning the "big states" in a general election with a unified and record turnout democratic party.

But let's avoid stupid arguments if we can.

[grantcart]

16. thank you for your thoughtful criticism but my point is simply

aimed at the often repeated statements in the media and the Clinton campaign that she out performs Obama in the big states.

I agree that that is not a particularly compelling point, however, they keep making it and it simply is not true.

[K Gardner]

27. Are you watching the MSM and reading the papers? If so, you'd

recognize this as an excellent rebuttal to the spin that is being spread by Clinton and her surrogates. We can't just let it ride.. if we don't bat it down, no one will. See Lanny Davis' comments on the below thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[kikiek]

81. I actually chuckled at the list of states.

[ExtraGriz]

15. add massachussetts, they have 121 delegates

it has more delegates than georgia which you included on the list...and hillary is ahead.

[grantcart]

17. Mass is only the 13th largest state in the Union

delegate size is not a reflection of poplulation. It is weighted also for democratic performance. Puerto Rico has many more delegates than many states in the union

[ExtraGriz]

23. but mass is larger in pop than washington

so shouldnt it replace washington which is on the list? which would put hillary ahead?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_pop...

[Yossariant]

26. Washington is the 14th largest.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

18. Excellent post!

Thanks for putting all of this information together.

[Cha]

19. Brwawawawawwaa..

Obama got more votes in Illinois than hilary got in New York and he got more votes in New York than hilary got in Ilinois.

And Obama performed quite well in the Big states where hilary squeaked by..thanks for this Grant. Priceless.

[goclark]

20. Let's Get This "Tell The Truth" Party Started

K and R

[NJSecularist]

22. Another Hillbot theory debunked.

[Zhade]

71. Clintbots lie? Impossible!

:p

[SoCalDem]

119. She's a martyr

Hill d'Arc

[scheming daemons]

24. Isn't it interesting that not ONE Hillary supporter has commented in this thread....

...

[JackORoses]

28. Missouri needs to be on there.

Obama 405,284
Clinton 395,287

[grantcart]

29. thank you but Missouri is only the 13th largest state and was in effect a draw

as you point out

[ladywnch]

84. uh, I'm confused....a few posts earlier you claim Mass is the 13th largest

in the country.....which is it.....MO or MA?

[tandem5]

30. um uh Washington? Okay then, then where's Florida???

you're cherry-picking the so called "beauty contests"

[grantcart]

31. read carefully "contested" elections

I didn't cherry pick just picked the top 9 contested elections as listed by Wikipedia. sorry

[whopis01]

55. Why do you consider Florida to not be "contested"? n/t

[PseudoIntellect]

61. ...because it wasn't a contest. It was an exhibition.

[whopis01]

82. no, it was a contest. Both their names (and others) were on the ballot.

It is a bit hard to argue that it was not a contest when there were almost 1.75 million votes cast. That is almost 3 times the average for the 2000 & 2004 primaries.

Even if the "your delegates won't get seated" issue was not in play for the primary, I doubt that it would have significantly changed the results in Florida. I think Clinton would have walked away with the most votes, with Obama and Edwards splitting the rest.

Actually it really goes to point out the flaws in trying to say who should get the nomination based on the popular vote, or the most states won. It was not the same contest in each location. When Edwards was still in the race, he and Obama were splitting a portion of the vote that is now supporting Obama. Of course, it is impossible to tell exactly how that would have gone if Edwards had not been in the race, but I am fairly confident more Edwards supporters would have gone for Obama than against him.

So, it was contest and Clinton received more votes than Obama.

But, while there were 871,000 people that voted for her, there were 879,000 people that voted against her.

[grantcart]

32. If you want take Washington out - the point is still the same

[tandem5]

34. I think I'm going to just let your comment speak for itself. nt

[grantcart]

36. well when you in fact have no facts that is the bes thing to do

[tandem5]

39. you're so pretty

[grantcart]

41. see now your not even batting 50%

[tandem5]

44. 50%? Oh no I never took a swing.

I'm relaxing at first base.

[grantcart]

58. calling me pretty counts for two outs

[tandem5]

72. so what now you're pitcher and ump in this metaphor?

[ExtraGriz]

33. wheres mass? they have larger pop than washington

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_pop...

so take away washington...add mass, and hillary would be ahead. sorry you didnt debunk anything but you did prove that cherry picking does help your cause.

[grantcart]

35. Washington passed Mass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_Union#List_o...


This seems to be the updated number

6,468,424 versus 6,449,755

In any case it is irrelevent to the larger point. Take Washington off the list.

The larger point is that Clinton is asserting that there is this overwhelmingly huge difference between them in the large states. That is simply not true.

[Diane R]

76. Leave Washington on the list. We had about 96 delegates (I think). That's more than other 'big' st

[semass]

78. Comparing the links in the two prior posts

The population figures are the same for 14 of the largest 15 states. Why would someone go in and just change Washington, moving it ahead of Massachusetts?

[SoCalDem]

92. Mccain's gonna win FL in Nov anyway

and so far at least, their totals don't count

[Bread and Circus]

37. Illinois doesn't count...for starters there's too many black people there and not enough latinos

blacks only count for 3/5th's of a person in Hillaryland.

[grantcart]

40. it seems that in nyc that might actually have been true

[Coexist]

66. ouch!

[ProSense]

38. Ouch! n/t

[Maribelle]

42. Sorry, you have debunked nothing...

You've included red states that no democrat will win in 2008.

With your red states pulled, even if you merely pull out Georgia, Hillary beats Obama hands down in the big states.

[Khaotic]

45. No, no, no, no, no. You dont' understand baby ...

Obama's a blues man, a Chicago blues man, who can unify the nation.

That's right baby, he's going to win the South in the general election. Everyone is going to come together under one great vision.

We are the change we've been waiting for.

You gotta believe us baby! We're gonna change the world!!!!!



Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, Hillary, Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

[Maribelle]

48. You forgot the 'on a mission from god' part.

[Khaotic]

52. Not from 'god'

... we're on a mission from us for America.

[VotesForWomen]

43. uh, georgia's not going blue in the GE. nt

[HeraldSquare212]

46. Wow, nice work and very compelling - thanks!

[CitizenLeft]

47. my apologies if I missed anyone saying this, but...

...a better argument against that "important states" meme is that big states won by Clinton like CA, NY, MA, NJ are states the Dem nom will win no matter what - the most shaky of those being NJ, but I don't doubt Obama can carry NJ as well. It's ridiculous to argue that because Clinton won them, Obama cannot. NONSENSE. Conversely, Clinton will brag about TX and OH, 2 states that I would put in McCain's column no matter what, though I will fight like hell to turn OH blue - the idea that Clinton would win TX and OH in Nov just because she won them in the primary is NONSENSE. And before anyone says "Obama can't win the small states" I'll concede that for WY, ID, and the reddest of the red states like NE and KS. But Obama can put some previously unreachable states into play ENOUGH to make them reachable for the 1st time in decades, states that Hillary has not a chance in hell of carrying. States like CO, VA, maybe even GA and others where Obama has gotten a lot of support. Hillary can't add a single state to Kerry or Gore's list - not a single state. And that includes FLORIDA.

[kentuck]

50. Excellent point.

"It's ridiculous to argue that because Clinton won them, Obama cannot. NONSENSE. Conversely, Clinton will brag about TX and OH, 2 states that I would put in McCain's column no matter what,.."

[CitizenLeft]

51. thank you!

[dailykoff]

56. Yes really good point.

California being a good example.

[CitizenLeft]

75. thank you too!

[grantcart]

59. well yes it is so obvious

but we keep hearing the premise which isn't even true.

[kentuck]

109. And this is the propaganda frame of the moment...

You hear it over and over on the M$M and it needs to be nipped in the bud. It is nonsense.

[kentuck]

49. Very interesting.

Hmmmm. And the question would be, what percentage of those 8 million votes that Hillary got would go to Obama if he were the nominee and what percentage of those 8 milion votes that Obama got would go to Hillary? I don't really buy the "big state" argument. Many of his votes were new voters. I doubt that Hillary could make the same claim? Recommended.

[KittyWampus]

53. kick

[ooglymoogly]

54. KR

[Medusa]

57. Spin Clintonistas! Spin!

I know you can!

[grantcart]

60. yes we should give herman a few extra threads just for laughs

[mcollier]

62. 2 plus 2 = 4

Basic Math is not to difficult to grasp.... But lets keep the race going state by state.

Just don't throw your campaign contributions away on a losing campaign... Think People...

Obama is the Democrats best choice to win in Nov... And a great choice he is...

[PseudoIntellect]

64. delete

[grantcart]

70. now you gave me a headache trying to figure out what brilliant thing you said

you wouldn't let us see.

[Lucinda]

63. Add on Florida where both were on the ballot and you get

Obama : 9.212,041
Clinton: 9,344,208

We can cherry-pick states and rearrange the numbers all day.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/...

[grantcart]

68. we used the top contested states - no cherry picking

The Clinton's have the strongest brand in America politics going back 30 years when Bill and Hillary literally kept every business card they could get their hands on and started "FOB" Friends of Bill. They have been masters of networking and building up national connections. Yes in any uncontested state where Obama has not had the opportunity to work there is a substantial advantage.

Now think about this. Given the fact stated above - does that not elevate Obama's achievement even higher?

Thank you for adding an even stronger dimension to the Illinois Senator's amazing historical campaign to be our party's nominee.

[dbmk]

79. Which is in play all over

Isn't this factor also a large reason behind Hillary doing better in primaries than caucases?

Caucases draws in the people that have spent time researching or feel passionate about politics and/or politicians.

Primaries, where you get a lot more people, also draws in those that have spent much less time, if any, getting to know the candidates. And then name recognition really kicks in. The fact that Obama, more or less in every primary, has been able to eradicate large leads once he starts campaining in that given state supports this.

[PseudoIntellect]

65. Oh, but this doesn't count.

...because you included red states that Hillary didn't do well in. Such obvious bias. (TX and OH do count, though, because HRC won those)

We're supposed to win all the big blue states we won last election! And forget the red states, they're evil. That'll get us the win in the GE! Oh, wait...

[frog92969]

67. Kick for President Obama

Get used to it.

[bigbrother05]

69. K and R

Good evening Grantcart

[McCamy Taylor]

73. Politically flawed analysis for several reasons.

1. Delegates this fall are what matters, not vote totals. If Clinton's more moderates voters go to McCain, Obama could lose NY, Florida, Ohio, California---all states where McCain did well. That leaves Obama with just Illinois for the big states and some of the smaller liberal states. McCain is not going to run as a hawk in the general. He will pull sharply to the middle of the road. Obama's votes on the other hand will not cross Hillary and go to McCain. They will either go to her or stay home.

Re: Michigan and Florida---if these states believe that Obama prevented their votes from being counted, that may be enough to tip Florida and its important electoral votes into the McCain camp. Southerners get very upset at what they perceive of as Northern oppression.

2. Obama can not count on the support of the political machines that helped Clinton. Again, as 1972 showed, if the Democratic machine looks at the current behavior of people in the Obama camp (like some of the posts here which denigrate the Dem political machine) they may say to themselves "We are being disrespected" and they will not offer their support. Just as McGovern was on his own in the general election in 1972, Obama will be on his own, having burned too many bridges in the primary. It is up to his supporters to adopt a more polite attitude when dealing with Democratic Party officials who have working in cities across this country for years.

The final ticket MUST be a unity ticket---Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama. That way the nation gets both the OLD and the NEW,. It can take a chance on Obama secure in the knowledge that it is also getting a ton of experience.

The GOP fears this combo. That is why they keep doing things to create hatred between the two camps. For over a year the right wing has been saying "Obama is a Muslim---and Hillary made us say it." Get wise to their lies. This is a dirty trick right out of the 1972 Pat Buchanan playbook---smear about one Democrat that are attributed to another Democrat.

[grantcart]

74. To begin with its not an analysis piece.

1)It is a simple refutation of the claim that has been repeated that Clinton has done substantially better in the large states than Obama. The truth is that it is basically a draw but if you get down to an exact computation Obama has in fact done a little bit better.

2)Obama has the delegates to secure the nomination. He only needs 45% of the remaining delegates to win.

3)A combined ticket is not a dream ticket it is a media creation.

4) Whoever gets the nomination is going to exercise their leadership and will not want a close competitor to be on the ticket to diminish their standing. This is normal. Calls for combining leaders on the ticket are perennial but almost never happen and are rarely successful.

5)Putting Hillary on the ticket doesn't add any balance. Obama will want somebody who has considerably more experience not basically the same. More importantly it will be somebody that could help make a swing state like Virginia or Ohio more secure. Hillary does not do that.

6)When you pick up somebody from the past you get "all of their enemies but only half of their friends".

7) Hillary is picking up $ 1 million a day and is spending only a fraction of it. She will end up with a war chest of $ 50 million at the end of the campaign (she has $ 29 million in GE funds). If she were to join the ticket she would (I believe) be required by law to use that money and not hoard it for future campaigns.

Her continuation in the campaign is a charade to replenish her campaign warchest.

In anycase the point of the Op was that taken as a whole Hillary Clinton has not significantly over performed Obama in the top most populated states. Neither your reply or any other in this thread challenge that assumption.

[golddigger]

98. Spot on McCamy Taylor, but unfortunately it will fall on deaf ears.

[ourvoicescount]

77. EXCELLENT WORK! Thank You!

[Vinca]

80. You've cited numerous big states that "don't count."

Surely you know by now that if Hillary hasn't won the state, that state is not important. The silliest argument about "big states" is that Hillary seems to insist all the Democrats that voted for her will automatically vote for McCain if she isn't the candidate. That's a ridiculous argument since both candidates are nearly identical on the issues and McCain is the polar opposite. The fact is, most Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate rather than risk Bush III and 100 years of war.

[grantcart]

85. lol

[SoCalDem]

93. AND in a primary it's always dem v dem so of COURSE a dem will win it

and if it's a traditionally dem state the winner of the primary will also win it in the general...UNLESS they have trash-talked and pissed off enough of their opponent's faithful to make them stay home..

[kentuck]

83. Kick for everyone to read .

It's obvious that the Hillary campaign is planning on running on the theme that only she can win the "big states". Obviously, when all the big states are taken together, Obama even wins the popular vote in those also. If you disagree, explain.

[kirby]

86. Nonsense...

I'm an Obama supporter, but this is nonsense. Elections are based on the electoral college, not popular vote, so your numbers are irrelevant.

I have a different theory. Hillary was always the DLC 'Establishment' candidate/presumptive nominee from day one. The larger more organized 'big' states have worked more for her than Obama, the outsider.

[557188]

87. WRONG

All I see is ridiculous spin and inflated numbers from Illinois added to the totals to push Obama.

Its a fact that Hillary is A LOT stronger in states like Ohio. All the spin you want doesn't change that fact.

[ACanadianLiberal]

88. self deleted

[ACanadianLiberal]

89. Hello, are we going to count FL, MI, MA this time?

Good try, but, you just show how pathetic you are.

You want to help Obama, but not this way though.

[grantcart]

96. Yes well we should definitely add Michigan since Obama's name was

not on the ballot. The OP clearly said contested elections

Mass has less population than Washington
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_Union#List_o...


But all of the nitpicking is irrelevant. Add Massachussettes take away Washington. Its pointless.


The point of the OP is that Clinton's assertion that she has some sort of commanding lead in the larger states where she way out performs Obama is FALSE.

Nothing in your reply or in the reply of anyone else in the thread challenges that basic premise.

The popular vote in the largest states is basically a tie. If you draw the line here Obama has more. If you add MA then Clinton has a few more. In anycase Clinton does not have a significant advantage in an area that she has been promoting as the singularly most compelling reason to continue her failed campaign. It simply is not true.

Resume nitpicking.

[ACanadianLiberal]

99. If this is a real debate, you have been totally smashed

like a small pile of hopeless mash patato.

Even that, you are admirable for the fact that you have the ball to bring up the topic.

Right, you have the ball.

[grantcart]

102. Premise: HRC campaign has significantly outperformed Obama in the big states is false.

You are unable to respond to the issue so you offer flacid commentary.

[ACanadianLiberal]

118. Here is one more my flaccid commentary

Title: "Another Lie Debunked"

OK: There is a LIE supposedly. What is it?

The lie is actually not a lie, instead a myth: "The last myth standing is that ..."

Anyway in your book, a lie equates a myth, fine. What is the lie really?

The lie is: Hillary has outperformed Sen. Obama in the "big states that really count".

Let's check into those numbers in the OP:

Total . . . . .8,643,000 . . . . . . . .8,487,000

Obama actually outperform Clinton by 156,000 votes. Way to go. But wait a minute, let do a little bit more work.

What I found:

(1) The total # of votes for Clinton from those "big states" you defined: 8,488,000. Not big deal, for us who are less educated, it's not difference.
(2) How do you define so called "big states"? In common knowledge, MI, FL and MA are BIGGER states than WA though.
(a) Oh, you reminded me in MI Obama was "not on the ballot", so let us take that away.
(b) You don't want FL in the math, even O was on the ballot, and reportedly the only one who campaigned over there. Since you even don't count it. You are the king here, you make the call.
(c) You took MA out because it "has less population than Washington". Is it true. Since you MYTHED one time, I'd better do my own homework, trust myself. Following the link you provided, I amazingly found the following:

Washington-------------------Massachusetts
5,894,121--------------------6,349,097

WOW. am I wrong on this? I must be wrong because I am in the pool of less educated people. How could 6,349,097 be bigger than 5,891,121? You are piece of joke now. Mr. Obama deserves better follower than you.

You said: "Add Massachusetts take away Washington. Its pointless". Really? My head is spinning.


If putting Ma in your math,

State ---------- Obama --------- Clinton
California ----- 2,126,000 ----- 2,553,000
Texas ---------- 1,358,000 ----- 1,459,000
New York --------- 698,000 ----- 1,003,000
Illinois ------- 1,302,000 ------- 662,000
Ohio ------------- 982,000 ----- 1,212,000
Georgia ---------- 704,000 ------- 330,000
New Jersey ------- 492,000 ------- 603,000
Virginia --------- 627,000 ------- 350,000
Washington ------- 354,000 ------- 316,000
Massachusetts ---- 511,887 ------- 704,591
Total ---------- 9,154,887 ------9,192,591

Difference? Clinton outperforms Obama by 37,704, but you want people to believe it is a tie.

Fine, it is a tie. Again what myth do you want to debunk? "Outperformed". With your mercy, after MA joined your math, Clinton did outperform over Obama.

What do you want to debunk now? Ouch, this time, "significantly outperformed". Does anybody here see that magic word "significantly" in your OP? Oh, you forgot putting it in, didn't you?

What a slippery road we are walking on!

Man, you are doing no good to Mr. Obama.

BTW, this is my flaccid commentary.

[ACanadianLiberal]

121. US States Population and Ranking

Just for your reference.

State Population Ranking Population
North Carolina 11 8,049,313
Virginia 12 7,078,515
Massachusetts 13 6,349,097
Indiana 14 6,080,485
Washington 15 5,894,121


http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population....

Notes:

(1) This site is not run by Clinton.
(2) This site does not show political preference.

[damitajo1]

90. um,

i'm sure you have heard of the electoral college. big states give us big electoral votes, regardless of the splits within each state. the dems have a stupid nominating process that doesnt attempt to mirror the electoral college. what a joke.

[LulaMay]

91. Talk about propaganda. I guess she hasn't won most of the big states. Sheesh.

[OzarkDem]

94. Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania

He's lost all of them and Clinton has won them.

You cannot win the electoral vote without them, period.

[kentuck]

97. So, you think she will win OH and FL in the general election?

You don't win electoral votes in a primary.

[OzarkDem]

114. Yes, she will

and because she won their primaries, she stands much greater odds of winning them than Obama.

[grantcart]

100. And the supposition that simply because she beat him there

that means that John McCain will beat them there is ridiculous.

But nothing shows how far you go to shred your self respect by including Michigan in the formula where Obama's name was not even on the ballot.

The basic premise of the OP is that the claim that Clinton has some huge numerical advantage in the big states is untrue. Nothing you have said or anyother responder has diminished that.

On the one hand

Obama has

More delegates
More primary victories
More caucus victories
Raised more money
Has more popular vote
Has more donors
Has more senator endorsements
Has more gubenatorial endoresements..

Clinton has

[MidwestPerspective]

101. Generation Jones member Obama does win Big States

Excellent post here about the truth re. Obama and the Big States. We're surprised becasue of the misinformation spread by Hillary's old school polarizing Baby Boomer campaign techniques. It's different now, and Hillary needs to jump...fast...on that if she'll have any chance. We're now on to new school post-partisan Generation Jones style campaigning...which is what will work for Obama in winning.

Relevantly, there is a growing consensus in the media, and among experts, that Obama is not a Boomer, nor an Xer, but instead is a member of Generation Jones (the heretofore lost generation between the Boomers and Xers, born 1954-1965)

Just in the last month or so, several top media outlets, including The New York Times, Newsweek Magazine, and NBC, have all made the argument that Obama is specifically part of Generation Jones. I also heard a panel of generations experts recently on a national radio show discussing this specific issue, and four of the five experts conlcuded that Obama is, in fact, a GenerationJoneser…that his bio and political worldview closely match the GenJones archetype (the one dissenting expert argued that Obama is a Boomer).

[LiberalFighter]

103. What one does in the preferential race does not always translate to the general election.

Anyone that tries to tie the two together does not know the difference and non-implication.

[LiberalFighter]

105. It isn't what one does in the primaries/caucuses that matters.

It is what they do in the General.

Just because Hillary or Obama beat each other in a red state does not mean they will win that/those state(s) in November.

[grantcart]

113. You would assume that to be so obvious that we wouldn't have to discuss

it especially with unusually long lead in time to the general election.

[LiberalFighter]

117. Can you believe that posters here think that just because a candidate

wins primaries that they will beat the Republican candidate. Or that because they won in states that generally go Republican they will win those states in November. What about the primaries that McCain won? I'm sure he won a lot of blue states but that doesn't mean he is going to win those states in November either.

[kentuck]

106. One would think that Hillary would have won the popular vote...

in all these states? Especially, since she had the organization and was the "inevitable" nominee. It's amazing that Obama was able to stay close in these states, let alone win the majority of votes!

[mainer]

107. What the heck happened in NY with Obama "zero" votes?

I hadn't heard this before about the zero votes for Obama in 80 districts. This sounds completely fishy and can't wait to hear the results of the re-count.

[grantcart]

115. Its never been really explained. It was called human error and so forth

but I think that the real impact here is that it is going to add fuel to those areas where there is a predominately African American congressional district and the congressman has jumped early and endorsed Hillary when she was a front runner.

These guys are going to start feeling heat and maybe some primary competitors.

[Eurobabe]

108. Nice work!

[mod mom]

110. Silly you-only certain states count!

[grantcart]

120. Rhode Island is always going to count

[stray cat]

111. But Ohio and CA are the only big states that are important.....

[parkeradison]

112. Regarding "another lie debunked"

Thanks for those numbers. Obama gets her no matter how you slice it.

[psychopomp]

116. Absolutely

It is time put an end to this primary season and start in on the GE.

[bagrman]

122. No votes for Obama in black districts. Caucus states go to Obama, Black box states, The Clintons.

We are so Fucked up it's not funny. Now what if the Super Delegates of the states that go to their repective nominees, turn the tide. The black boxes get The Clintons close. Then the states where she got the most votes , their super delegates go to her en mass, to give her the nomination. She would't need to win the popular vote. LOL WE are so fucked.


Edited for seplinlg.