Clinton tougher in the big states? Really?

[FightTheRight89]

The Clinton camp has pointed to their victories in states like Ohio and California, saying those are critical states and thus more important to the Democrats' victory in November. She's pointed to her victories in those couple of states and said that she will be better positioned to grab those electoral votes come the General Election.

Well, let's see if that's the case.

All of the following polls are taken from RealClearPolitics.com:

Rasmussen:
Michigan: McCain vs. Obama ------------ McCain +3
Michigan: McCain vs. Clinton ------------ McCain +3

------------ No difference.

Rasmussen:
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton ------------ McCain +2
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama ------------ McCain +1

------------ No difference.

Susquehanna:
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton ------------ Clinton +3
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama ------------ McCain +4

------------ Minor edge to Clinton.

Strategic Vision:
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton ------------ McCain +6
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama ------------ McCain +3

------------ Minor edge to Obama.

Rasmussen:
California: McCain vs. Clinton ------------ Clinton +7
California: McCain vs. Obama ------------ Obama +15

------------ Most interestingly, when Clinton is the nominee, California becomes a swing state. Hmmmm...

Rasmussen:
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton ------------ McCain +6
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama ------------ McCain +6

------------ No difference.

Rasmussen:
Florida: McCain vs. Clinton ------------ McCain +7
Florida: McCain vs. Obama ------------ McCain +4

------------ Barely any difference.

Rasmussen:
New York: McCain vs. Clinton ------------ Clinton +12
New York: McCain vs. Obama ------------ Obama +13

------------ No difference.

As we can see, there is no difference between Obama and Clinton in terms of general election matchups with John McCain. And as we can see, just because Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary in all of these states, she does not have a greater edge against McCain than Obama. Perhaps that's because the Democratic primary is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AFFAIR than the general. Mostly because John McCain is not on the ballot.

But in Hillary Clinton land, that's not the case.

My question: Can the Clinton campaign just shut up about this already?

[gabeana]

1. Interesting

I think if he had more time he would won California, my thinking might not be for off, the polls are suggesting this, also check survey USA national map poll

[amborin]

2. numbers show McCain wins no matter who dems run, unless dems have super ticket

and ca can be a swing state with O

what that poll suggests is:

dems need the super ticket

[DJ13]

4. what that poll suggests is:dems need the super ticket

No, the poll suggests the Dems need to get their nominee chosen SOON to overcome the advantage the GOP has with their single candidate.

[LisaL]

3. If you accept those polls as accurate, then I am afraid democrats

have already lost.
You didn't notice that?

[Umbram]

5. The "Big State" argument has been idiotic from the beginning.

Which of the two Dems beats the other in a primary in a big state has NO bearing on which could/would win that same state in the GE.

It's just one of those arguments that holds up for those who either 1.) will accept anything that favors their candidate or 2.) don't bother to reason it through.

[120cars]

6. When did any Clinton official say she was better in big states?

Sometimes people make up talking points that the opponent have never used, in order to mock them.

[gabeana]

7. Your kidding right?

"Clinton's aides argue that because she has won big states such as New York, New Jersey, California, Texas and Ohio, she would be the better general-election candidate.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0OkW8Ml8ljw&refer=home"