A myth from the primaries destroyed

[GoesTo11]

In the primaries, Obama lost to Clinton in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and under the unusual circumstances that we had, Michigan and Florida too (not to mention close-fought Indiana and obvious Blue states New York and California). The talk was about how these were the states Democrats needed to win the election, and if Obama couldn't win them in the primary, he wouldn't be able to win them in the general election.

Don't mean this as an I-told-you-so. In fact, Obama's ability to win at least some of these states was due in no small part to Clinton's efforts in the fall.

But there's an important lesson there: Obama's ability to compete in the Red areas, the 50-state strategy, worked. And it worked better than the 269+1 strategy of the last couple elections.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Campaigning in some states was a complete waste of time.

The 50 State Strategy didn't win, GWBush-and his legacy-lost.

[Jane Austin]

4. Not at all.

Obama needed a good winning margin to support his mandate.

And for all we know, some county commissioner or state legislator in one of those places may have won because of straight-ticket voting.

[Zynx]

9. I disagree. We made inroads in a lot of states we have never been competitive in and won some.

Also, we had some strange House wins like in Idaho and Alabama.

[Bicoastal]

2. Sure, but on the other hand, I think both Clintons deserve a lot of credit...

...for boosting him in those states. Big Dog was AWESOME in Florida!

[Captain Hilts]

7. I wish they'd had Bubba pounding the pavement in Arkansas. Gore wasn't used much either. nt

[Captain Hilts]

8. Duplicate

[yardwork]

3. This was always in illogical argument. Apples and oranges.

Just because Democrats chose one Democratic candidate over another in the primaries, there was never any reason to suppose that all those Democrats would cross party lines and vote for the Republican in the general election.

[Captain Hilts]

6. Correct. Another press-inspired-myth. nt

[dascientist]

5. K&R