Kerry surely would sign on to this logic...check out the landslide victory he would have won if only winning a state in a primary translated into winning that state in the general election:
UPDATE: See my more in depth analysis of how well primary victories/losses predict general election outcomes.
5 comments:
The same can be said of Obama, if you look at Kerry data. The many red states he won went to Bush. The tried and true blue states stayed with him in the general election. The major electoral states: NY, TX, CA, FL, OH and PA are an entirely different matter. Had Kerry carried FL, OH, or TX he would have won.
Contrast to the general election map showing Bush's wins. The "most states" certainly appear his, all he needed was both FL and OH to secure the nomination. But as stated before, all Kerry needed was one of 3 choices, Bush could have won the other two and it would be President Kerry.
This is totally faulty logic. In the general election only the swing states count. The red states are going to McCain no matter who won in the democratic primary. The question which democratic candidate can bring in some swing states. So far it seems to be Clinton.
With regard to the "swing state" argument, you might check out Mike Wagner's earlier blog on this topic:
http://ccpsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/who-is-winning-swing-states.html
This comparrison really means nothing because in 2004 there was a contested Democratic primary, so there was a reason for Democrats to get out in vote. Bush was the incumbent and was automatically going to get the nod, so no huge numbers were needed for him to get the Republican nomination
The swing state argument only goes to Clinton if you list the swing states as FL, OH, PA. If you add in VA, CO, MO, WI, IO, and MN, then it's not quite so clear. He won primary blowouts in most of these. Add in areas that seem Red like MT and LA but that actually went Democrat in 1992, and it's even more tilted towards Obama.
Post a Comment