Does the Number of States Matter?


Maybe. Obama has now won 13 states, and Clinton has won 8 states:

Obama — 13 States: AK, AL, CO, CT, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MO, MN, ND & UT
Clinton — 8 States: AZ, AR, CA, MA, NJ, NY, OK & TN

Hers are mostly big. His are mostly small, but there are more of them.
The Dems are divided — just really divided down the center.
— Steve Clemons


19 comments on “Does the Number of States Matter?

  1. Mr.Murder says:

    Four of Obama’s stat wins were places that had no GOP race going on. Two were staggered, and two were only for Democrats.
    That means people crossing the line who had no intention of voting GOP were putting in their votes.
    Forest for trees item.


  2. w2 says:

    Seems like quite a few folks are confused between a primary and a general election. It’s easy for a Democrat to get high turnout of Democrats in a Democratic primary contest. Especially if they are motivated. It doesn’t mean squat if the state is truly red. Obama won Alaska, Idaho and Kansas by getting less than 1.5% of the total electorate to come out and caucus for him. He’s not going to turn those states blue.
    I saw the CNN analysts talking about how Georgia will go democratic because there were alot of Democrats that turned out for the primary, as if those are the only folks who vote in November. Dumb as bricks they are.


  3. Sandy says:

    Clinton or Obama….I just hope it doesn’t get too self-destructive between Democrats before it’s over.
    Otherwise, we face the super-duper Neo-Con candidate as president who wants, for sure, to “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”
    Interesting Jim Lobe article (and comments):


  4. Jim says:

    Others have said it, but I think what’s most interesting are the states Obama (potentially) puts in play, especially against St McCain of Green Rooms. Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, MO, even Connecticut could be in play, given the way McCain appeals to people who see his personality as more important than his policies.


  5. Carroll says:

    The “mentality” difference on the ME and war issue is becoming more clear between Hillary and Obama, at least to me. If there is a mind reader or insider in the audience who can tell us which of the things they say they really mean or don’t mean I am all ears. In the meantime all we outsiders can go by is the words and patterns of the candidates. So far Hillary has been 100% hawk on the Israeli/AIPAC/Lukid message 100% of the time. It appears that Obama has strayed off the zionist neo ME reservation several times and has had to be bullied back into line.
    His Summit proposal gets him a thousand points from me.
    GOP Jews slam Obama on Muslim summit
    Published: 02/05/2008
    Republican Jews assailed U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for saying he
    wanted a summit of the United States and Muslim nations.
    Obama, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in a
    recent interview with Paris Match magazine that he wanted such a summit to
    start “honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows between
    Muslims and the West.”
    That prompted the Republican Jewish Coalition to say in a statement it was
    “deeply troubled by Senator Obama’s desire to ‘hold a summit in the Muslim
    world, with all heads of state’ — many of whom have yet to renounce
    terrorism or refrain from anti-Semitic incitement.”
    The statement continued: “Nowhere in the Paris Match article does Senator
    Obama affirm Israel’s right to exist. Nor does he condemn the repeated
    terrorist strikes against Israel — the only stable democracy in the region.
    Further in his interview, Senator Obama said he wanted to listen to the
    ‘concerns’ of these nations. For many, their biggest concern is Israel’s
    Obama in other forums repeatedly has upheld Israel’s right to exist as a
    Jewish state and condemned attacks on Israel. It was not clear from the
    short article published in Paris Match whether his remarks were edited.
    Obama’s proposal is not much different from Bush administration outreach in
    recent years in which Karen Hughes, one of President Bush’s closest
    confidantes, conducted listening and outreach tours in the Arab and Muslim
    One of the Republican candidates, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, cited
    the RJC statement in a Jerusalem Post op-ed, saying Obama’s proposal “deeply
    troubled” him.


  6. evap says:

    One more comment. I live in Georgia and I don’t think there’s any chance that Obama could win Georgia in a general. (Clinton couldn’t win it, either.) The only way would be if Democrat turnout was huge and Republican turnout was tiny, but that’s highly unlikely. Winning the primary in “red” states does not translate into winning the general in those states.


  7. Jimj says:

    Sounds like a lot of damage control to me.


  8. evap says:

    First time posting, and I just had to say that I really like this blog.
    I don’t think the Democrats are “divided”, I think that for the first time in a long time they have two great candidates and it’s hard to choose. I would be happy with either Obama or Clinton as my president.


  9. Beth says:

    I second what Maxwell and Nobcentral said above.


  10. carsick says:

    From CNN, concerning exit polls:
    “There’s no doubt Democrats are torn between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But the early exit polls show they are not bitterly divided: 72 percent of Democrats said they would be satisfied if Clinton won the party’s nomination, while 71 percent say the same about Obama.”


  11. 7th grader says:

    California has only 2 senators in the Congress. Each of the 50 states has 2 senators. Delivering policy requires aligned senators.


  12. Nobcentral says:

    I don’t see how last night can’t be anything but a stunning victory for Obama. The previous commenters are right. He won purple states. He won in the south. He won in Connecticut and the Midwest. And it looks like he won in New Mexico. If California hadn’t voted yesterday, we’d be talking about how he just destroyed HRC.
    As a registered Democrat, Obama is the only candidate that makes sense given these results. That Obama could actually win Georgia and Alabama in the general is stunning. HRC won states that Dems will win anyway. Obama would win those states plus a bevy of traditionally red states. How can we not nominate him?


  13. carsick says:

    Don’t interpret divided as split. Clinton and Obama aren’t very different on the issues. I suspect the Republicans will have a tougher time getting the less motivated to the polls come November. McCain/Huckabee looks more like a frankenstein ticket (various non-matching parts trying to walk) and the Dems will still be offering the first African American or first Female contender. History awaits and the Democrats will be motivated and united come November.


  14. EA says:

    ckrantz asks an interesting question: What if the Dems can’t decide until the convention? To extend the question: …while the Repubs DO decide well ahead of their convention?
    Even though there has been recent division amongst the usually more disciplined Republicans that may all be forgotten if it quickly comes down to McCain. Then its one horse, fixed, against squabbling Dems until the Democratic convention. That’s a lot of time given the media’s and the drone-filled public’s short attention spans. I can see the anti-McCain venom currently being spewed by the Coulter Club quickly switching its aim toward the Obama/Clinton tit-for-tatters.


  15. Andy2 says:

    Another way to look at the returns from Tuesday is in the % of the win. When Hillary won, she did so by a smaller %. Obama on the other hand seemed to really take the majority % by 20-30% points if not greater. Exceptions are Missouri and New Mexico where Obama won by a thin line.


  16. Maxwell says:

    Delegates matter. Number of states are symbolic.
    The important thing here is that Clinton racked up most of her delegates in states that the Democrats would win even if they ran a small marsupial with a charming grin. Let’s face it: Obama wins New York, California, Massachusetts and likely New Jersey in a general contest just as well as Clinton does.
    But Barack won in eminently winnable purple states like Colorado and Missouri, and he won by more that 60% in eight states (Clinton only did so in one: Arkansas). Those states include a state like Georgia, where he won more votes than McCain and Huckabee combined, driving a Democratic voter turnout that eclipsed GOP turnout by roughly 100k votes. That’s astonishing. We saw the same thing in South Carolina: more Dems voting than Republicans, and Obama’s total eclipsing McCain’s and Huckabee’s combined. Even in Alabama the Dem and GOP vote was almost equal.
    Could Obama put some deep south states in play in a general election? Could he bring back midwestern states like Iowa and Missouri, maybe pick up Colorado, where he won big tonight?
    I think perhaps Democrats are looking too much to the 2000/2004 models, and should expand the playing field a bit. Obama could lose Ohio and Florida, and still win handily with a completely different palette of states.


Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *