I’ll give my spin about last night later, as well as some thoughts on the disturbing exit polls from Ohio.
But first we need to address this “big state” idea. Basically, the theory is that winning big states in the Democratic primary means you can win them in the general election, which either Democrat has to do. I haven’t seen anyone really debunk this theory as the nonsense that it is, so I’m going to give it a shot.
First off, the idea that California would go to anyone but a Democrat or that Texas would go to anyone but a Republican is crazy, so a primary victory in either state in irrelevant.
But let’s look at the battleground states. Let’s look at Ohio, for example.
Does the fact that Obama lost badly in Ohio mean he can’t win that state in a general election? The numbers would seem to indicate that Ohio is just as much in play as any battleground state he won like, say, Missouri.
Thanks to the fine folks at Yahoo, we can see how Obama did in Ohio:
That his popular vote total.
All the Republican candidates combined got 1,010,864.
That’s a difference of only 31,839. And Obama lost Ohio — badly. I’m willing to be at least 3% of those who voted for Hillary would vote for Obama in a general election.
Granted, turnout will be different for a general election, but that only proves my point: a primary election has NO barring on the results of a general election.
So the idea that Hillary (or anyone else, for that matter) winning big states proves she’s better off in a general election than Obama is ridiculous.