After 43 Democratic nominating contests, including Tuesday's primary in Mississippi, Sen. Hillary Clinton now trails Sen. Barack Obama in both state victories and the number of pledged delegates won.

That's unlikely to change between now and the last scheduled primary in June.

But Clinton and her campaign have seized on an argument, hoping to sway enough superdelegates over to her side.

They contend that because Clinton has won primaries in important battleground states like Ohio -- and perhaps Pennsylvania next month -- she is better positioned to win those states in the general election.

After her triumph last week in Ohio, the Clinton campaign issued talking points for its surrogates.

They included this statement: "She's won in states that Democrats need if they are to succeed in November" -- referring to states like Ohio, New Mexico and Florida. It's worth noting, however that neither Clinton nor Obama campaigned in the Sunshine State after the Democratic National Committee stripped it of its delegates for moving up its contest before Super Tuesday.

And on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat who supports Clinton, said, "The traditional role of the superdelegates is to determine who's going to be our strongest candidate ... She's clearly the strongest candidate in the states that Democrats must win to have a chance."

He continued, "Look, it's great that Barack Obama is doing wonderfully well in Wyoming and Utah and, and places like that, but there's no chance we're going to carry those states."

Likewise, Obama's campaign has pointed to his victories in states like Colorado, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin as proof of his ability to win in states that could be important battlegrounds in November.

But there's just one fallacy to these dueling arguments that hasn't received much attention: Recent history shows that winning a state in the primary season -- no matter its importance on the map -- doesn't guarantee success in the general election.

In 2004, for example, John Kerry won early Democratic contests in Iowa, Arizona, and Missouri, but he fell short in all three states when pitted against George W. Bush.

In 1992, Bill Clinton captured primaries in Florida and Texas, but lost those states in the general election. And in 1984 -- in a primary that has drawn parallels to the current Democratic race -- Walter Mondale secured the Democratic nomination over Gary Hart in part by winning large industrial states like Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania.

But in the end, he wound up winning just one state against Ronald Reagan: his home state of Minnesota.

The opposite also is true. There are numerous examples of candidates losing states during the primaries but then going on to win them in the general election. Bill Clinton, for instance, captured Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire in his 1992 contest against George H.W. Bush. But he lost all three in the primaries.

The reason for this primary-general election disconnect? It's pretty simple, say political pollsters and analysts: The voters who turn out in a primary are very different from those who turn out in the general.

"I think it is dangerous to generalize from primary to general election," says Democratic pollster Mark Mellman.

"A swing voter in the general election is a different person than a swing voter in a primary," he adds, explaining that while Clinton might win in a state among white men ages 45 to 59 or that Obama might win independents, they are doing so only among those participating in that Democratic primary.

University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato put it another way on Tuesday, telling MSNBC-TV that about 40 million voters would participate in this year's Democratic and Republican nominating contests. That's compared, he said, with more than 120 million who would likely vote in the general election.

From NBC's Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro
The Clinton campaign put out a memo today asserting that "if Barack Obama can't win [in Pennsylvania], how will he win the general election?"

The memo continues, "Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972."

But, as one of us writes, there is a fallacy to this kind of argument that hasn't received much attention: "Recent history shows that winning a state in the primary season -- no matter its importance on the map -- doesn't guarantee success in the general election.

"In 2004, for example, John Kerry won early Democratic contests in Iowa, Arizona, and Missouri, but he fell short in all three states when pitted against George W. Bush. In 1992, Bill Clinton captured primaries in Florida and Texas, but lost those states in the general election. (thank God Bill for Ross Perot!)

"And in 1984 -- in a primary that has drawn parallels to the current Democratic race -- Walter Mondale secured the Democratic nomination over Gary Hart in part by winning large industrial states like Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania. But in the end, he wound up winning just one state against Ronald Reagan: his home state of Minnesota.

"The opposite also is true. There are numerous examples of candidates losing states during the primaries but then going on to win them in the general election. Bill Clinton, for instance, captured Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire in his 1992 contest against George H.W. Bush. But he lost all three in the primaries."

(Trouble in Corky City)

You know, AU, you ran away from this site only a couple of days ago whining and crying about how they would love you better over at the Daily KOS and it was all my fault that you were leaving.

Now you come back and use my handle in several posts on several threads when I have said naught to you.

If you are going to do that, then don't play the Drama Queen yet again and piss your pants when I decide to retort you rather than that better option of not feeding the trolls.

If you are going to do that, then don't play the Drama Queen yet again and piss your pants when I decide to retort you rather than that better option of not feeding the trolls.



Posted by Corky at 2008-03-13 10:45 AM | Reply


Corky,
He's a professional bitch. If he's not crying about me, or Rob, then it's you.
Another perpetual victim, just what the Retort ordered I guess.


He's one in a long line of pussies that want to throw rocks up until they realize that they aren't any good at it. Then they cry about it.

Sorry to step on your thread while stepping on that troll, Oh Tater of Doom!


On topic, no, there is no way to "guarantee success in the general election.", but there are highly likely indicators when one candidate wins the Dem base of blue-collar workers by large margins in big battleground states.

On topic, no, there is no way to "guarantee success in the general election.", but there are highly likely indicators when one candidate wins the Dem base of blue-collar workers by large margins in big battleground states.

Bull shit, at almost every one of the states she claims are important are states the republicans have crossed to keep Obama out.

Well guess what, that cross means Hillary will certainly not take those states in the general election.

Convoluting the issue is just political pandering for the candidate and not truely looking at the reality of this objectively.

To even claim she took Ohio is tenuous at best, particularly after the fact lie came out that she orchestrated the Canadian NAFTA lie.

Those votes she would have never ever received and will now never receive since the truth is out.

101st and Corky should hook up.

I never said I was leaving. I said I was spending less time here with pissants like you and more where a decent discussion could be held without all the juvenile bullshit.

Corky, you continue to post 2 posts a day that have no bearing on Hillary's attributes.

101st, you're just a snarky idiot

Some of the states that Obama has won in the primaries will be won by McCain. Obama might win two to four such states in the general, Hillary will not win any. McCain is not going to win any of the states that Hillary has won except maybe New Hampshire. Any Democrat, even Clinton, will win in New York, Massachusetts, California and Rhode Island.

Obama has won the popular vote and pledged delegate count, more states and is ahead in the polls. He has earned the nomination. Clinton and her shills, like all almost certain losers hoping for a miracle do, are just blowing smoke and throwing shit against the walls to see if anything will stick.

And I don't give a crap what either of you think about anything. You don't think so much.

DaliyKos is a site where people hold good discussions. You two would be kicked off any thread within 10 minutes. The likes of you don't seem capable of adding anything positive or thoughtful to any discussion.

Isn't it always true that someone who won a state in a primary loses in the general election?

I mean, even if both candidates win every single state in the primaries, when the General comes along, one will HAVE to lose.

I can see splitting some speculative hairs about PA since there's six weeks of nothing else to do, but honestly, why don't we just wait and see what happens.

Woo Hoo! Spud's thread is onna front page!

Spud notices the blog-god gave it a shiny new headline as he is wont to do.

"Murray: The Primary vs. General Election Fallacy"?

1,2,3,4,5,...

48 characters?

Showoff!!!1!

Obama has won the popular vote and pledged delegate count, more states and is ahead in the polls. He has earned the nomination. Clinton and her shills, like all almost certain losers hoping for a miracle do, are just blowing smoke and throwing shit against the walls to see if anything will stick.

~BiB

THIS!

A Thousand times THIS!!1!

On topic, no, there is no way to "guarantee success in the general election.", but there are highly likely indicators when one candidate wins the Dem base of blue-collar workers by large margins in big battleground states

~Corky.

And those grapes wuz prolly sour, to boot!

Gobama! 08ama '08!

Be Well.

PS RCADE

I'll check back here from time to time and see if you've decided to restore som balance. I've had it for now.

Your bias in allowing 2 smears a day on Obama and removing one of only a handful of blog entries I've made the last few months from me has pissed me off.

I asked Corky nicely if she was a Democrat and if she really needs to slam Obama day after day. She replied by posting 2 more Obama slams in 5 minutes as a 'fuck you'.

I used to post thoughtful posts until I had to look at that bullshit every day. I can go to RushLimbaugh.com and get the same level of banality, innuendo, and smears. Not that I will.

But, I've discovered DailyKos - where actual discussions are held, and posters who are insistant about being assholes constantly are monitored by the readers themselves - weeding out trolls like Corky.

Email me when you think you can keep some semblence of balance on this site. You should remove the 'Yellow Dog Democrats' if you can't maintain a balance of opinion.

--American Loonity

This is what it sounds like
when doves cry.........

But, I've discovered DailyKos - where actual discussions are held, and posters who are insistant about being assholes constantly are monitored by the readers themselves - weeding out trolls like Corky.

Email me when you think you can keep some semblence of balance on this site. You should remove the 'Yellow Dog Democrats' if you can't maintain a balance of opinion.

DaliyKos is a site where people hold good discussions. You two would be kicked off any thread within 10 minutes. The likes of you don't seem capable of adding anything positive or thoughtful to any discussion...

...You should remove the 'Yellow Dog Democrats' if you can't maintain a balance of opinion.

Jesus Christ, just go then.

Oh, BTW, you informed analyst of the political scene - you're about 3-4 years late to "discover" DailyKos. Why don't you go "discover" Amazon.com or eBay now.

After her triumph last week in Ohio, the Clinton campaign issued talking points for its surrogates.

----

Corky, come on, fuss up.

Its great that the Clintons are looking at changing the rules of the DNC to see who gets the nomination but its upp to the elected officals to represent the will of the people as they were voted in by the people. With Barack Obama leading in pledged delagates by 162 going into PA the DNC must be careful to choose the candidate that is best poised to win, Obama is in first placed in pledged delagates, polular vote, states won and overall delagates going into the DNC. If the superdelagates choose Billary, the weaker candidate then this country will be up in arms. Howard Dean must oversee that WE THE PEOPLE pervale. Hillary will say anything do anything including burn the village to get elected.

Apparently, no one has noticed that Billary won Texas and Ohio largely because Rush Limbaugh wanted her to. Does she think she'll get those Republicans to vote for her in November? I think not.

Billary, having systematically injected race into this nomination, will be burned by it. No way the Dem brass bucks the threat of race riots if Obama doesn't get the nomination. Rule by thuggery...Good ol' union-style socialist politics.

don't play the Drama Queen yet again
FF corky


What happens to the dems when the old white women and men get pissed and alarmed (20 yrs w/Pastor Wright)...won't vote for Obama?

What happens when the Blacks get pissed and won't vote for the racist white woman?

I stayed down here to watch Mac on Hannity last PM...he could very well steal many of these disillusioned voters. Not every dem out there is ...far left hanging by their fingernails liberals... as some here on the DR.

He actually came across pretty good.. I have been having trouble talking myself and others into supporting him. Last night may have convinced me to support him.

"And one more warning for you Super Delegates thinking of turning against me: Spitzer."

--Hillary!

"And one more warning for you Super Delegates thinking of turning against me: Spitzer." --Hillary!

FF Vernon. And one would have thought Vince Foster was enough to scare them all into line.

"He actually came across pretty good.. I have been having trouble talking myself and others into supporting him. Last night may have convinced me to support him."

I'm not enthralled with him, but what in hell are ya' gonna do? I voted democrat when the democrats were democrats. JFK, Scoop Jackson, Mendel Rivers, Sam Nunn, John Stennis, John Connolly....but once the party was hijacked by leftist-socialists I've been voting republican. NOW, I'm not even excited about them. BUT...what in hell are ya' gonna do?

Another superdelagate from Wisconsin jumped on Obamas bandwagon today. The other day she lost an important superdel ally in NY by the name of Spitzer. That had to hurt. The superdelagate difference is down to Hillary ahead by 36. There was a time she was ahead by around 100. Pa does not belong to Clinton. Obama has not even started campaigning yet and that 18% lead in the polls is likely to come tumbling down in short order once Barack starts .

Apparently, no one has noticed that Billary won Texas and Ohio largely because Rush Limbaugh wanted her to. Does she think she'll get those Republicans to vote for her in November? I think not.

Posted by jonryker
==========================
A point not being made by you and others and the mainstream press and it should be very obvious. Barack is being portrayed as the ultra left wing candidate by the conservatives. If true then they should be wanting to go against him not Hillary. The reality is that Barack is not so left of center than Hillary and no a toe to toe confrontation would leave Barack a winner. This is also fresh fodder for the superdelagates when the arguement is made that Barack can't win. The republicans don't want to face Barack and there is a big reason and that is they know they can't win.

1 Trillion dollar tax hikes do not sell well in election years...

I know that there is no real difference between Billary and Obama on economics....That's their problem...they're running two economically identical socialists and pretending this is a contest. All they can do, since they're both alike, is make petty attacks at each other and try to steal the election, which makes them look bad.

But really, even if they looked good....1 Trillion dollar tax hikes do not sell well in election years.

".they're running two economically identical socialists and pretending this is a contest."

You wouldn't know a socialist if Karl Marx slapped you silly.

BillOfidian gets a FF.

That being said, most current day self-labeled "socialists" couldn't tell you what a true socialist, by the Marx/Hegel understanding of that label, is.

"That being said, most current day self-labeled "socialists" couldn't tell you what a true socialist, by the Marx/Hegel understanding of that label, is."

True. That's partially because everything from a social welfare state to a Stalinist state is called socialist by somebody, somewhere. For that matter, Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, etc., have all been called socialists by posters here.

The word has lost all descriptive value for this reason.

The word has lost all descriptive value for this reason.

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-03-14 04:16 PM

Good to see our UCLA Poli/Sci education wasn't a total waste.