super tuesday results

ok so john mccain won big on super tuesday and all of the other republicans have basically been defeated, since mike huckabee won more states on super tuesday than mitt romney, while john mccain won all the big winner-take-all states and got a huge gigantic lead in delegates that is basically insurmountable. but what about the democratic race? well, barack obama won more states than hillary clinton on super tuesday. the only state that hasn’t been officially called for either of them is new mexico, but since barack obama is ahead 49% to 48% and 92% of the results are in, i will just assume for the time being that he gets new mexico. and i will go ahead and give michigan and florida to hillary clinton even though those contests didn’t count and hillary was the only major candidate on the ballot in michigan and nobody was allowed to campaign in either of those 2 states. and then suppose i made a map showing who won which states, and colored in barack obama red and hillary clinton blue. it would look something like this:



now compare it to the results of the 2004 general election, with george w. bush as red and john kerry as blue:



and then look at the results from 2000, with george w. bush as red and al gore as blue (florida is white because we will never really know the truth about what happened there):



do you notice any patterns in these maps of red and blue states? okay, check this out:

the following states were red in all three maps: alaska, alabama, colorado, georgia, idaho, kansas, missouri, north dakota, south carolina, and utah. that means george w. bush won them in the 2000 and 2004 general elections, and barack obama won the 2008 democratic primaries in those states. there were also 2 states that al gore won in 2000 but george w. bush won in 2004: iowa and new mexico. both of those also went to barack obama. this shows barack obama has a very good chance at winning back at least some of these red states if he is the democratic nominee in the general election for president of the united states.

the following states were blue in all three maps: california, massachusetts, michigan, new jersey, and new york. these states voted for the democratic candidate in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, and voted for hillary clinton in the 2008 democratic primary. this shows that hillary clinton has strong support in states that the democrats are going to win no matter what, states that are democratic strongholds that will not be contested in november. hillary clinton also won in new hampshire, the only state that shifted from red to blue between 2000 and 2004, a state that was once republican but is now increasingly democratic just like all its neighbors in new england.

so what other states do not fit the pattern? hillary clinton beat barack obama in a few red states: arkansas, arizona, florida, oklahoma, nevada, and tennessee. but that is nowhere near the number of red states where barack obama beat hillary clinton. obama beat clinton in 12 of the states george w. bush won in 2004, and clinton beat obama in just 6 of them. and barack obama has won a few blue states, proving that he can actually win among real democrats. his blue states include connecticut, delaware, illinois, and minnesota, all of which are staunchly democratic. so he won 4 staunchly democratic states so far and hillary clinton has won 5 so far. but the ones hillary clinton won have much bigger populations: california and new york in particular. but connecticut is the state that elected joe lieberman, so it is not completely democratic. delaware is right next to the south, and illinois and minnesota both border some red states. in other words, people in those blue states are more likely to interact with conservative republicans on a regular basis, since they are in the general area. that contrasts with states like new york and massachusetts that hillary won, where even the republican politicians are all liberals.

so what is the point of all this? well, in november 2008, we will elect a president using the electoral college, and electoral votes will count, not the popular vote. this means winning swing states, holding onto your party’s stronghold states, and maybe even winning in a few states that nobody thought you could win in, states that used to always vote for the other party’s candidate. right now according to the polls, barack obama would beat john mccain in a general election, but hillary clinton would lose to john mccain. i think people need to really think about the electoral college and the idea of maybe picking up some states that we have not won in recent history. a number of so-called “red states” that voted for george w. bush in both 2000 and 2004 are not really all that conservative. the following “red states” actually voted for bill clinton in both 1992 and 1996: arkansas, kentucky, louisiana, missouri, nevada, tennessee, and west virginia. and bill clinton won these other red states in one of those 2 elections: arizona, colorado, florida, georgia, and montana. there are plenty of other red states that have not been won by a democratic presidential candidate in many, many years: alabama, alaska, idaho, indiana, kansas, mississippi, nebraska, north carolina, north dakota, oklahoma, south carolina, south dakota, texas, utah, virginia, and wyoming. if barack obama is the nominee, he has a good chance to actually pick up some of those states that democrats have not won electoral votes from in many, many years. why do you think democrats in states such as idaho, kansas, and alaska voted so overwhelmingly in favor of him and against hillary clinton on super tuesday? it is because they know he has a better chance of winning! they are surrounded by republicans, they know how much republicans hate hillary clinton, and they know it would be much better to have an inspirational candidate that actually attracts people rather than a divisive candidate everyone already hates.

so what is my point? if you live in a state that has not voted yet, please vote in your democratic primary or caucus for barack obama, since he has a much better chance at winning in the general election than hillary clinton if she is the nominee. there is no possible counter-argument to this electability argument in favor of barack obama. it is impossible to make any sort of convincing case that hillary clinton is more electable, using logic and statistics and poll numbers and such things, because all of the numbers, all of the indicators point to the fact that barack obama is far more electable. and not only could he win big, but he could help other candidates running for office as democrats win, by attracting more people into voting for democrats. this would mean more democrats in the house of representatives, the u.s. senate, more democratic governors, more democratic state legislators, more democratic mayors... we could revitalize the democratic party in all of those states where it is near-dead after years of republican one-party rule in those states! barack obama has consistently taken the high road and not trashed his democratic opponents, instead focusing his attacks on republicans. hillary clinton, on the other hand, has used surrogates like her husband bill clinton to make dirty attacks on barack obama that seem like something karl rove or dick nixon would do, with complete disregard to the fact that this hurts the democratic party and might help elect a republican president this november. we ought to elect a candidate who cares more about electing leaders who are right on the issues that matter, who are from the same party as us, than someone so caught up in personal ambitions that they are willing to ruin things for their own party if they don’t get to be the nominee. it is really important that the democrats win, and i do not want the clintons or anyone else to screw this up for us. so if hillary clinton is the nominee, she had better not screw up this election, and she had better win. but it would be a lot easier for barack obama to win in november than her. and in the end, that is what matters, because that is what will end the war in iraq and bring us universal healthcare and solve many other problems as well, and all the democratic candidates agree on most of those things. barack obama is better on issues of foreign policy, since he believes in diplomacy and does not believe in war, and does not want us using cluster bombs or land mines against innocent civilians. i have to admit, hillary clinton is probably a bit better on issues of healthcare. and although barack obama has spent plenty more years than hillary clinton in elected public office (mostly in his state senate), hillary clinton has spent more years in the national spotlight, and people know all about her, both good and bad. perhaps that is why so many people do not like her, because we focus on the few bad things and ignore the many good things. regardless, we ought to have a candidate who is very likely to win, and who will govern our nation wisely, rather than continuing the policies of the bush administration. and so, it is crystal clear whom we ought to be voting for in these primaries and caucuses. and as for the republicans, they are an interesting sideshow, but not the main attraction, and hopefully none of those clowns will get anywhere near the white house. perhaps hillary clinton would also have a good chance in the electoral college: florida is full of old white women, and that could tip the balance in hillary’s favor if she is the nominee in november. but banking on florida is a risky strategy: look where it got rudy giuliani, a fellow new yorker. so let us just stick with what we know works: choosing a candidate lots of people really like, instead of a candidate lots of people really dislike. it is just plain common sense.