Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Students Blogs -> Harrell Blog

Law Students

: Harrell Blog

The Silly "Big State" Argument

By pharrell

Stephen Colbert tackled this subject a few days ago, a did a far better job than I can. But that won't prevent me from overing my 2 cents.

The Clinton campaign's recent argument that she is the better general election nominee because she bests Obama in primaries in the "big states" that will matter in November is silly: the primary electorate is different from a general election electorate, and ability to win the former is, at best, indirect evidence of any talent for winning the latter. For evidence, take a look at the primary/general election maps from recent presidential elections:

2004 Democrats: Primary and General: John Kerry, as you can see, won all but 4 primary states; that didn't save him in November.

2000 Democrats: Primary (chart) and General: Al Gore won everything; that didn't save him in November (well, depending on how you view the contest in Florida).

2000 Republicans: Primary and General: Bush carried two of the 8 states that McCain won in the primaries in November, New Hampshire and Arizona. I doubt that McCain would have won any of the other six (MI, VT, MA, CT, RI, and MA) in a general election against Al Gore, with the possible exception of Michigan.

1996 Republicans: Primary and General: This is the one race that offers some slight support for Sen. Clinton's theory. Bill Clinton won four of the five states that Bob Dole lost that year in the primaries.

1992 Democrats: Primary and General: Bill Clinton ultimately carried 9 of the 11 states that he lost in the primaries.

1992 Republicans: Primary (Bush won everything) and General: Bush's clean sweep against Pat Buchanan didn't save him come November.

1988 Democrats: Primary and General: Dukakis won several of the "big state" primaries, including California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Florida--to name just five states that he lost to George H.W. Bush in November of that year.

1988 Republicans: Primary and General: Bush lost primaries in Nevada, Washington, Alaska, Colorado, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa and Kansas; he won all of those but Washington, Minnesota, and Iowa in November.

1984 Democrats: Primary and General: The 1984 election returns are almost too dismal for a Democrat to look at. Mondale won 17 states in the primaries that year, including enough of the "big" ones, like New York (but not California), to clinch the nomination. Only Minnesota and D.C. chose him in November.

1980 Democrats: Primary and General: Another dismal map for Democrats. But of the 5 states that Carter won in November, one--Rhode Island--had been carried by Kennedy earlier that year.

1980 Republicans: Primary and General: Bush's primary wins in Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Maine didn't keep Reagan from winning every one of those states in November.

It is true that losses in primaries may show a campaign's organizational weakness or some failing in a candidate, and I'd be concerned about Obama if he lagged in the popular vote or had run a less-than-brilliant campaign. (His campaign has, by all accounts, been far better run). But as these maps suggest, ability to bring new voters into the process while winning independents and swing voters--not just holding on to the loyalists who supported you in primaries--is key to a general election victory.

Full post as published by Harrell Blog on March 12, 2008 (boomark / email).