Remembering Ivan Dixon
A Photo that Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Want You to See

The Truth about Winning the ‘Big States’

It's time to stop Hillary Clinton from continuing to spread misinformation about winning the "Big States" in order to position herself as the frontrunner candidate. Here's an excellent post based on analysis that clearly refutes Clinton's claims.

Please share this information. Link back to this post or copy it and send it to your friends and family. Just get the word out about this and other election issues. Hillary Clinton must be stopped from stealing the presidential election.

Hat tip to JD at Black in Business.

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.)

————————————————————————-
Jesse Jackson, Jr. - Congressman Second District of Illinois http://www.jessejacksonjr.org

Join the campaign to build a more perfect union. Contribute online by
visiting: http://www.jessejacksonjr.org/contribute

Paid for and maintained by Jesse Jackson, Jr. for Congress

Comments