I have heard the argument that Clinton has won more "swing states" than Obama and this is given as some amazingly irrefutable indication of Hillary's superiority as a general election candidate.
Below the fold is an expansion of a comment I made to someone dusting off this old hypothesis.
Here's the hypothesis (of course, presented as fact)
The election is a contest of who can win the most support from swing states, which makes it easy to figure out who the best candidate is: the one who has the higher percentage of votes from swing states.
The swing state argument is baloney! This argument is trotted out every so often when all the others invalid arguments need a rest.
First, the swing state fallacy assumes that only swing states are important. If a state is "true blue", ignore them. They'll vote for us anyway. That is how we lost congress AND the presidency. If a state is "blood red", ignore them. They are a waste of time. They won't vote for us so screw 'em. Of course this ignores the fact that there ARE pockets of democratic voters in every state that can be energized and have an effect on congressional, gubernatorial and local elections. Think a "50 State Strategy". Sound familiar?
Forgetting the logic of the argument. After all, who needs logic clouding up a desired "reality"? Let's see a run down of the Clinton swing state victories.
Florida - Won on name recognition alone no one campaigned there
Michigan - Obama was not on the ballot, "Not Clinton" got 40% and many voted in the Repug primary so their vote would count for something
Ohio - Project Chaos and machine politics favored Clinton - still only a 10 point win
Texas - 4 point win - lost the caucus because Limbaugh voters did not bother to caucus - Obama got more delegates
New Mexico - 1 point win in state she should have won handily
What other "swing states"?
Nevada? - Obama got more delegates
Missouri? - Obama won by 1%
Where are these swings state wins I keep hearing about? There are in Obama's win column.
You want swing states?
Obama won:
Nebraska 68% to 32% - 36 point wins!
Louisiana 57% to 36% - 21 point win
Mississippi 61% to 37% - 24 point win
Georgia 66% to 31% - 35 point win!
Alabama 56% to 42% - 14 point win
Kansas 74% to 26% - 48 point win!
Colorado (big swing state) 67% to 32% - 35 point win!
Minnesota 66% to 32% - 34 point win!
Illinois 65% to 33% - 32 point win!
Virginia 64% to 35% - 29 point win
South Carolina 55% to 27% - 28 point win
Washington 68% to 31% - 37 point win!
So, Hillary's 15 point win against "none of the above" in Michigan is a strong showing?
In Florida, a 17 point win for a former first lady and 8 year senator on name alone, with no candidate campaigning, is a great win?
A 4 point win (while losing the overall delegate count) in Texas , a state that is unlikely to go Dem in the general, is a remarkable feat?
Data can say anything you want if you only look at what conforms to your "reality". If we look at the results in the same tunnel-vision fashion, Hillary can not win Nebraska, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, Virginia, South Carolina or Washington. We all know that is an idiotic assumption to make. The Clinton campaign would have us believe that the only important states are the ones she won. Several states needed to win the presidency might have a problem with that assumption. The fact is all states matter. We need to win as many states as possible and we need to influence as many down-ticket races as we can. This is about building a party not dividing up voters. Hillary is just to divisive a figure to unite the country.