×
Over in the comments to my article, JoeJoeJoe writes:
The Democratic Party is more than the Presidential nominee. Obama can win the Presidency with 269 EVs by losing FL, OH, PA, MA and winning CO, IA, NM, NV, MO and VA. All of the analysis of what is and isn't a swing state is based on exclusionary logic that denies that VA+CO>PA and MO+KS+IA>OH. The difference between Clinton's path and Obama's path is there are 10 Senate seates in the Obama states I gave versus 4 Senate seats in the Clinton states. Obama's path is a much better path for the party and to win Congressional seats you actually need to govern.Clinton's strong big states not offer fewer EVs than Obama's midsized states in aggregate, they have far less of an effect on the co-equal Congressional makeup. And what about state legislatures and governors? How will Clinton convince superdelegates from CO+VA that she is a better candidate because she won Pennsyvania? Short answer: She won't.That seems correct. I'm pretty skeptical that Obama can win Kansas, but there's little doubt, at this point, that he's provides a bigger boost to downticket Democrats running in moderate and even conservative states. And that matters. You want a real theory of change? Have the votes to pass your legislation.Moreover, Obama's strength in somewhat smaller states is having an odd impact on post-election night momentum. Because we're conditioned to think of the major states as the relevant prizes, Clinton's strength in California, New York, Ohio, Texas, and possibly Pennsylvania feels like a pretty significant advantage. And, in the case of Ohio and Florida and Pennsylvania, it is, at the least, a meaningful indicator. But at the end of the day, electoral votes are electoral votes, and though a win in Iowa may not feel like a win in Ohio, winning Iowa and Virginia has exactly the same electoral impact.
