Two Specious Arguments From Camps Hillary and Obama: One Red and One Blue

If you're following the daily debate between the Hillary and Obama camps on who should be the nominee and why, you'll frequently see the following two arguments, both of which are specious.

Camp Obama says that the fact that Obama has overwhelmingly won Democratic caucuses and primaries in a number of "red" states proves that he's the candidate who can expand the Democratic base in November and carry states Democrats have never carried before.

There's a grain of truth to that, but not much. For example, Obama beat Hillary by a whopping 57%-39% in the Utah Democratic caucus. But there's no chance in heck that Obama is going to carry Utah in November. All he proved is that among the tiny percentage of Utahans who happen to be Democrats, he is the favorite.

He also had large margins in places like Idaho, Wyoming, and North Dakota, but he's not going to carry any of them either.

The grain of truth is that Democrats in red states do judge Obama as more likely to be able to broaden the party's appeal and bring in new voters in those states. In some place--Virginia for one--that just might make enough difference to swing the state. But it's not like Democrats in those states wouldn't vote for Hillary.

The Hillary camp has the opposite argument. They argue that Hillary's strong showings in the larger industrial states, many of which are blue, show that she will be the stronger candidate in November. Again, this is specious. It's not like most Democrats in traditionally blue states--like California, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey--WOULDN'T vote for Obama in November. If anything, polls in those states show both candidates with about the same percentage in head-to-head match-ups against McCain.

Nor does Hillary's stronger showing in a swing state such as Florida show that she has the ability to win Florida in November. It's hard to believe that Hillary Clinton, who is viewed and defined as a "traditional" Democrat, will do much better than either Al Gore in 2000 or John Kerry in 2004 in a state like Florida (or Ohio).

The arguments--and they're aimed largely at superdelegates--will keep coming, but it's worth seeing through the BS. Of which there is much, on both sides.