Why Is It Okay For Clinton To Skip States?
Obama won very big last night all over the place and today I’m wondering why Clinton is skipping these states.
I mean, I know what they’re saying…that they’re focusing on the larger states in about a month, but is that responsible? Is it a smart strategy? On Super Tuesday it’s understandable that you can’t focus on all the states and you have to pick and choose, but after that it really shouldn’t be like that. You should have enough organization to compete in these other states. Especially if your campaign shows how you’ll run the country.
(Ordinarily, this would be a firing offense — how dare they let a state go uncontested?) […]
John McCain’s advisers are probably thinking: woe unto the Democratic nominee who refuses to organize; woe unto the Democratic nominee who appeals to activists perfectly and regular Democrats kinda sorta.
And yet her strategy is clear. Give up the small ones. What that’s resulted in is Obama winning 18 of 28 states, with New Mexico yet to be decided (looks like it’ll break for Clinton).
And here’s a question…if Clinton’s strategy actually works what if she becomes the nominee by winning 15 of 50 states? Is that something the Dems really want to do? Elect a pure “blue state” nominee?