Hillary has the better primary wins so far. She has won in red states that actually voted for Bill Clinton twice and several others that voted for him once, Obama's only non-caucus big swing state win is Missouri, which was pretty much a tie, so both can claim they could win that in the general. Obama has been winning a lot of caucuses in red states, and I think caucuses are undemocratic. His red state primary wins are legitimate, but I doubt he wins these states in the general. However, it is the caucus wins that are really putting him over the top. I think both the superdelegates and caucuses are undemocratic, so the superdelegates are just as democratic as the caucuses. So if Hillary can win Ohio (the ultimate swing state along with Florida), Texas, and Pennsylvania, then she can make a very good case that the superdelegates should vote for her, regardless of the pledged delegate situation.
Hillary has won Tennessee, Arkansas, and Nevada (caucus)—all of which are red states that voted for Clinton twice. She has also won Arizona and Florida--which are red states that Clinton won in 1996 (obviously Arizona will not be in play in 2008, but it is demographically similar to other Southwestern states that will be in play). She also won New Mexico and New Hampshire, which voted for Clinton twice and Bush once (she barley won New Mexico, so it is similar to Obama’s Missouri win).
Obama has won one red state that went for Clinton twice—Missouri, and he only beat Hillary by 1% of the vote with great Democratic turnout, so Hillary can make the case she can win Missouri in the general. Obama won Iowa (caucus), which went for Clinton twice and Bush once. Obama also won Georgia, which is a red state that went for Clinton in 1992 and now appears solidly red. He also won Louisiana and Colorado (caucus), both which went for Clinton in 1996 and are now red states, but each have one Democratic senator. Louisiana--who knows how it will vote, but Blanco, a Democrat, is very pro-life and so is Jindal, and other factors make it difficult to predict. Louisiana does have a Democratic senator, but she is at the top of the list of Democratic senators that Republicans think they can pick off (I also think all the Democrats to win a major statewide office recently had a French surname). Obama's other big win is Virginia, which people say might be in play, but Jim Webb barely won it and neither Obama nor Clinton have a background like Webb's, so I do not know how likely it is that it goes blue.
So Obama has two caucus wins in these important states to Hillary’s one caucus win (NM is called a caucus but it is more like a primary), and her Caucus win in Nevada is bolstered by her primary win in Arizona, which has similar demographics to Nevada and neighbors the state. So I discount Obama’s caucus wins because it is difficult to vote in a caucus so voter turnout is suppressed. Clinton’s Florida win is discounted, but the demographics of the state do favor her, and all the candidates did put some effort into winning the state (Obama ran a national TV commercial that was seen in Florida), although none of the candidates campaigned there.
The superdelegates have total discretion about who they can vote for (this may seem unfair, but those are the rules all the candidates agreed to play by), and I think Hillary can make the better case that she can win in November based on the results so far. So, if she wins Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania (and I do not think she needs to win any of them by big margins), then the superdelegates should support Hillary.
Hillary has won Tennessee, Arkansas, and Nevada (caucus)—all of which are red states that voted for Clinton twice. She has also won Arizona and Florida--which are red states that Clinton won in 1996 (obviously Arizona will not be in play in 2008, but it is demographically similar to other Southwestern states that will be in play). She also won New Mexico and New Hampshire, which voted for Clinton twice and Bush once (she barley won New Mexico, so it is similar to Obama’s Missouri win).
Obama has won one red state that went for Clinton twice—Missouri, and he only beat Hillary by 1% of the vote with great Democratic turnout, so Hillary can make the case she can win Missouri in the general. Obama won Iowa (caucus), which went for Clinton twice and Bush once. Obama also won Georgia, which is a red state that went for Clinton in 1992 and now appears solidly red. He also won Louisiana and Colorado (caucus), both which went for Clinton in 1996 and are now red states, but each have one Democratic senator. Louisiana--who knows how it will vote, but Blanco, a Democrat, is very pro-life and so is Jindal, and other factors make it difficult to predict. Louisiana does have a Democratic senator, but she is at the top of the list of Democratic senators that Republicans think they can pick off (I also think all the Democrats to win a major statewide office recently had a French surname). Obama's other big win is Virginia, which people say might be in play, but Jim Webb barely won it and neither Obama nor Clinton have a background like Webb's, so I do not know how likely it is that it goes blue.
So Obama has two caucus wins in these important states to Hillary’s one caucus win (NM is called a caucus but it is more like a primary), and her Caucus win in Nevada is bolstered by her primary win in Arizona, which has similar demographics to Nevada and neighbors the state. So I discount Obama’s caucus wins because it is difficult to vote in a caucus so voter turnout is suppressed. Clinton’s Florida win is discounted, but the demographics of the state do favor her, and all the candidates did put some effort into winning the state (Obama ran a national TV commercial that was seen in Florida), although none of the candidates campaigned there.
The superdelegates have total discretion about who they can vote for (this may seem unfair, but those are the rules all the candidates agreed to play by), and I think Hillary can make the better case that she can win in November based on the results so far. So, if she wins Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania (and I do not think she needs to win any of them by big margins), then the superdelegates should support Hillary.
