Clinton's "Big State" Theory

Obama Campaigns for All Americans, Not Just Some

By Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.

In the 2000 election, the one that created the red/blue
map, Vice-President Al Gore was officially credited with
winning 20 states plus Washington, D.C.  Had he captured
the electoral votes of even one more state, even one as
small as New Hampshire, he would have been sworn in as
President instead of George W. Bush.

So it make sense to look at who is winning the "Gore" states,
the "blue" states, the states that Democrats carried in 2000, 
rather than focusing on some new argument about "big" states? 
After all, one of the biggest states is Texas, Bush's home base,
which Gore never tried to carry.  The point is, one key to
winning is your ability to carry "blue" states first (plus at
least one more!).

Barack Obama has won more "Gore" states so far, by a 2-1 margin. 

Obama has won 12 Gore states: 
                      Maine                   Vermont        
                      Connecticut 
                      Delaware                Maryland              
                      Hawaii 
                      Illinois                Wisconsin       
                      Washington, D.C. 
                      Iowa                    Minnesota          
                      Washington 

Clinton has won 6 Gore states: 
                      New York                Rhode Island      
                      Massachusetts   
                      New Jersey              California        
                      New Mexico 

There are still 3 Gore states to go (plus we could mention
Florida, which Gore really won!): 
                      Michigan                Pennsylvania       
                      Oregon 

Isn't it at least possible that the ability to carry these
"Gore" states is more important than the ability to carry "big"
states?

Let me make one more point related to this whole Clinton
argument about the "big" states—as Bill Clinton himself proved
in his 1992 victory, the ability to win a Democratic primary or
caucus is not directly correlated to your ability to carry that
same state in November.

Guess how many states Bill Clinton won in the fall that he had
lost in the Democratic primary and caucus process?  I counted
13.

Of the 33 states he carried to win the Presidency, Clinton lost
2 states to Tom Harkin—Iowa  Minnesota.  He lost 5 states to
Jerry Brown—Nevada, Colorado, Maine, Connecticut  Vermont.  And
he lost 6 more states to Paul Tsongas—Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Maryland, Rhode Island, Delaware and Washington.

The conclusion is obvious—losing a state in the primary/caucus
process to a Democratic opponent does not mean that you cannot
win that state in the fall against a Republican opponent.  Bill
Clinton disproved that theory in 1992—13 times.

Both of the points I made above—that Obama is winning the Gore
states, and that losing a state in the Democratic primaries does
not prevent you from winning it in the fall against the
Republicans—cast further doubt on the Clinton campaign's
newly-invented "big state" theory.  It may well be true that the
Clinton strategy for trying to win the Democratic nomination was
based on a group of big states—but that strategy has not only
fallen behind the Obama campaign strategy of treating all the
states as important, it is not necessary to win in November.

Al Gore showed us that in 2000.  And Bill Clinton showed us that
in 1992. 

(To confirm, contact Ken Edmonds at 202-445-1484. Feel Free to POST.)