Markos Moulitsas posted an article today examining the argument that Hillary should be the Democratic nominee because she has won "all the big states" in the primaries. Some excerpts:
The 10 biggest states by population [are] California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina. ... Of the states that will be competitive, Obama has clear advantages in Texas and North Carolina, while Clinton has clear advantages in Pennsylvania and Florida. In the electoral math, that is 49 EVs for Obama, 48 for Clinton. Yup, Obama has a one electoral vote advantage from the top 10 "big states" that Clinton can't stop yammering about.
But more important than the biggest states should be the closest states in 2004. ... If you were to make the moronic assumption that only the winner of the primary could win those states, that would add up to 74 electoral votes for Obama, 49 for Clinton.
But better yet, let's look at SUSA's 50 state poll and see how the candidates fared in these states against McCain. ... In terms of electoral votes, that's an advantage of 101 for Obama, 74 for Clinton.
No matter how you parse it, the data is clear that Obama is the more competitive November candidate for the Democratic Party.
No comments:
Post a Comment