Hillary Clinton and a frog analogy

Campaigning in South Dakota today, Hillary Clinton evoked an aphorism she learned in Arkansas in what Eloise Harper of ABC News reported was a reference to her White House quest: "You can't tell how far a frog will jump until you punch him."

Make of it what you will; frankly, we haven't got a clue.

We do know this: The Times' Louise Roug also was on the road with the Clinton campaign, and she relates that under gray and rainy skies, the candidate gamely stumped the eastern part of the sprawling state.

She greeted breakfast patrons at a diner in Madison (where Dakota State University is located), spoke to mostly older voters around midday at a convention center in Huron (host of the annual South Dakota state air) and wrapped up her trek with a stop at a barn in Watertown (hometown of Terry Redlin, tabbed the nation's most popular artist eight years running in the 1990s by U.S. Art magazine ... no word on whether he's endorsed in the presidential race).

On the trail -- and comments about frogs notwithstanding -- she pressed what has evolved into her main argument for Democrats to stop and think hard ...

... about settling on Barack Obama as the party's nominee -- her contention that she will prove the more electable rival in the general election matchup with John McCain.

In Huron, while saying the presumptive Republican nominee "is offering the wrong ideas for America," she added, "He will be a very formidable candidate [and] that's why we've got to field the stronger candidate."

And that, she sought to make clear, would be her.

Clinton was disembarking South Dakota tonight. But her husband, the ex-president, takes up where she left off.

Bill Clinton, in typically peripatetic fashion, is scheduled to make eight appearances in the state Friday and Saturday. And he'll be back for six more stops on Monday (the day before South Dakotans and Montanans cast ballots that wrap up the primary season).

Obama, for his part, will be spending the weekend in the state, holding town hall meetings Saturday in Rapid City and Aberdeen and headlining a rally at Mitchell on Sunday.

The latter event is a sure sign that he doesn't hold much hope of prevailing in Puerto Rico's Sunday primary. And the attention each campaign is lavishing of South Dakota is a sure sign that the state is seen as much more competitive than Montana, where Obama is favored.

-- Don Frederick

Photo credit: Mel Melcon/L.A. Times

Comments

[allison, california]

Folks, you don't need to wonder national polls favor Hillary in general election against McCain over Obama. Polls have been this way for months. Those democrats that voted for Obama have no right to complain when it comes at a risk of losing the white house. electoral map is showning Hillary would win by A LANDSLIDE against McCain while Obama-toast could not even get the majority (270) needed to win.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107539/Hillary-Clintons-SwingState-Advantage.aspx

***********************************
***** Guilty by association?! *****
***********************************

You hear that a lot these days and you have to wonder about it. Rev. Wright has 20 years of association and earned an honorary position on Obama's campaign as spiritual advisor. Is it just that or is it deeper than that? Certainly, there is no doubt that Obama has repeated associations with Anti-American groups: Bill Ayers, Farrakhan, Hamas, Rev Wright, Tony Rezko, appeasement-loving groups like Iran, and now Pfleger. Who is next? He flocks to them - oh no, I said that wrong. They flock to him in masses and endorse him, even appeal for presidential-level security on Obama's life.

I could not possibly imagine, say if I have a child involving in a group that I don't like a gang, that the child would not learn bad/criminal habits.

Obama sits in that church for 20 years, and if he misses a surmon, Rev Wright make sure there are ways for makeup session such as purchasing a CD. If Obama claim ignorance to it then he is not fit to govern any state because he is clueless of a church of only a few thousands people. How will he handle a country of many millions? you really have 2 choices to pick, whether guilty by association or not:

1) Obama truely knows nothing of the controversial teaching. This option tells me he lacks good judgement in people and is out of touch. What kinds of people would he select to the cabinet?

2) he knows and lie. What a two-face!

3) Both 1 and 2.

Take your pick.

[LilaG]

The Clintons are a couple of old grifters and Hillary is unelectable

[TySmith]

"And that, she sought to make clear, would be her."

Maybe I should be past astonishment at the mocking tone of this report (and so much other media coverage of Sen. Clinton). Certainly anyone reading or watching the news cannot fail to notice that the tenor of reporters' stories on Clinton has grown even more pervasively snide and often downright hostile since it was decreed (apparently, by Someone, Somewhere) that the Democratic race should be over and Clinton should throw her 17 million votes in with Obama's 17 million votes and that's it.
Even with voters still itching to vote, even with that all-important "delegate math" not yet conclusive, even with electability issues still on the table for the party superdels and all of us in the party who care passionately about making sure we field the strongest candidate for the fall, and even with the possibility that Clinton will move ahead in the popular vote after Puerto Rico.

But the narrative is that Clinton should just stop, right now. That she (and not , by the way, he) is the spoiler. That she's power-mad, or crazy, or evil. What does she want? Why does she go on? Wow, she really IS like that character in Fatal Attraction (as several news commentators have opined in what can only be called deeply thoughtful analysis)!

Serious candidate with 17 million votes to her credit, winner of mammoth primaries in huge swing states, gifted policy wonk, hard-working twice-elected U.S. senator, dedicated public servant, U.S. presidential contender a hair's breadth away from being the party's nominee? You wouldn't know it from much of the coverage, which narrative seems to have her as something like a delusional loser (and, usually, some combination of pathological liar, ambitious schemer, and--as that well-respected policy adviser to Sen. Obama had it, "monster," right up there with Hitler, presumably).

This campaign has long been a rush to the bottom in terms of anything approaching the practice of bona fide and substantive journalism--i.e., fair and balanced (dare I use these Fox-appropriated terms) reporting and analysis on candidates' credentials, records, positions, characters, temperaments, and electoral strengths and weaknesses. But the recent (especially) coverage toward Clinton is so astonishingly disrespectful as to boggle the mind.

I'm not even talking about the endlessly ugly and stupid yammering of the blogosphere. I'm talking about major networks and major news organizations such as, yes, the LA Times. I just don't get how or why a major presidential contender (and a hard-working and accomplished second-term senator from New York)--an able and obviously gifted leader who has slogged away on the presidential campaign trail for 16 or more months, who has drawn the votes of some 17 million people (and the support and strong admiration of many), someone who has broken barriers and inspired great numbers of people as the first serious woman presidential contender in U.S. history, and someone who has become a political candidate strong enough and good enough (all the brickbats and often vitriolic Hillary-hating notwithstanding) to have ended up in a near statistical tie (by all measures) for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party (even against a gifted phenom like Sen. Obama)--I just don't get why or how such a figure should in any sense be a target of mockery or disdain (however casual, as in this report) by the fourth estate.

Illuminating? Helpful? Responsible? Appropriate? There's so much more to say here, and I wish this were more eloquent. But like many other folks I know, the media coverage of the campaign in general and Clinton in particular has infuriated and disgusted me to the point of exhaustion. I can only suggest (but hardly hope) that before you hit the publish or upload keys next time that you might take a look at the tone of the coverage. Skeptical? Cynical? Incredulous? Snide? Snarky? All of the above? Quick, for 10 points! The subject must be Hillary Clinton!

[maz hess]

You really never know with whom you are dealing till you kiss the frog. Maybe hillary is still waiting to be kissed by a prince. Maybe Shrek should take that job. He is in the best phyisically shape for this tough challange. Somebody has to call for him.

[Bob]

The DNC lawyers have argued that at most half the delegates (or all the delegates with half a vote) could legally be seated. Anything more would reek of impropriety!

There are not enough delegates left in the three remaining contests to affect the outcome.

The heavy-weights (Pelosi/Reid) are posed to pressure the remaining Super-Delegates to chime-in.

Stay tuned for the season finally of the Obama-Mama-Drama!

I don’t want to spoil the ending by telling you that Obama emerges the victor; oops!

Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind!

http://klintons.com

[jennifer potenciano]

to date, this has been the most brutal democratic nominating contest i've known for ages. but where it could have been a trendsetter of a contest between the first afro-american & the first woman candidate to have the most serious chance to be the dems prexy nominee, sadly, the race has transformed into a no-holds-barred demolition job on hillary by obama.

obama is a ruthless enemy, a dirty player who has thrown all that he could against hillary, including the kitchen sink.

it is a fully documented fact, with proofs galore that can be scanned from all the papers & online editions of all publications that have been covering the dems race since day one.

consider the fainting lady who's been a fixture in every obama campaign rally. that's what we call here in the philippines as the "showbiz" tactic, similar to the egging-on "buyer/customer" of erzats diamond rings on the sidewalk. for me, this is most unfair & fould, becoz it smacks of fakeness, not truthfulness that obama says he represents.

recall also how obama's people, w/ help from his media/press friends, demonize hillary to their heart's content, complete with sexist references & personal slurs on what obama's camp calls hillary's "ageism disadvantage."

if obama were the messenger of change as he touts himself to be, or, if this was a phony stance, if obama were only a gentlemen, to say the least, then he should have raised the level of campaign to a much decent, no-below-the-belt, ad-hominems studded impugning of hillary.

but no, obama has proven to be the vintage dirty politician of yore who'll stoop to the lowest level just to destroy his enemy (while using his good-cop-bad-cop diversionary tactic).

but is hillary's time "past," or that "it's time for someone new to take {her} place," as obama's apologists taunt her?

excuse me, but obama is grossly mistaken on this "ageism" issue.

one, the youngest politburo member in china's ruling party is, if memory serves me right, 75 years old, & yet this “young” chap & the rest of his oldies-but-goodies buddies are "revolutionizing" china for the better like no 46-year-old pretender can ever hope to do.

2nd argument: to rebut obama on his claim that it's his time to take hillary's place as america's new leader, let me paraphrase the great communicator himself. when the issue of age was raised against reagan by his dem opponent (mondale?) during the prexy campaign, reagan shot back--& you'd better listen up, or read on, obama: "i will never allow the issue of my political opponent's YOUTH & INEXPERIENCE to be an issue in this presidential contest between the two of us."

same can hillary tell obama: "i will never allow my opponent's raw, tender, political wet-in-the-ears youth & inexperience, his ignoramus background to be an issue in this race between us."

the problem is that obama & his legions of mad-as-hell hillary hater flocks have become experts at deminizing hillary, such that if obama loses, it's still hillary who's to blame.

excuse me, but all that hoopla about the so-called "political analyses" of self-declared experts on how obama has allegedly sewn up the race by "mastering the delegate math" is, i think, just that--all hoopla. w/ the chance to show up to these experts their own misreading of the race, i could offer a more convincing & modesty aside, more intelligent appraisal of the dems race.

granting for the sake of argument that obama has got the delegate math in his pocket, yet why is he still losing to mccain, or trailing the gop bet, if he & his people are “geniuses” in politics?

the point is clear enough, & in this hillary is correct: obama stands to lose against mccain in the fall if the afro-american bewitches the superdels. that being so, hillary, ergo, is the stronger nominee who can wallop mccain in the contest for the electoral votes.

yet, one thing stands out in all obama moves & wild claims against his being america's "messiah" (oh, i remember that the "cuckoo's nest" is full of self-deluded saviours). whenever he fails, obama always points to hillary as his wrecker. that has always been obama's staid line of defense if obama loses the dems nomination, or, should he get the superdels to his side, even the race against mccain. this early, obama & his fawning apologists are laying the ground for a hillary persecution if obama loses, "for hillary undercutting him." hillary has always been obama's convenient scapegoat, his punching bag, his shock absorber.

if this isn't weird political style, i dunno what is. why can't you, obama, stand on your own two feet, your own strengths (if you have any, but this i doubt), why can't you blame yourself for your gaffes, unenforced errors, stupidities, etc., instead of looking for someone to blame, such as hillary?

isn't it enough that you have blamed ALL PAST U.S. PRESIDENTS (INCLDG. CARTER & JFK) FOR WHAT YOU SAY WERE THEIR WRONG POLICIES? what sayest thou, eh jimmy carter?

[Ronald Loui]

No comments yet? Finally people have started not caring about what these people say? Interesting. I was wondering whether the country had inexhaustible patience... Bring on Chelsea -- I've finally grown tired of the older two.

[ps underwood]

I am an 80 year old white female doctor. Because of my career choice, I was ahead of the feminist revolution. At not time was I treated with anything but resprect by my male colleagues, I am dismayed by the fact that my viewas are not incuded in polls. I would like to see a woman president but not at all costs. She would have tp be honest, keep to the rules she agreed to,. be fair, campaign on honest issues--but most of all be respected by her peers. There are several good women in either the senate , house or as governors who could fit the bill--with the integrety to be president. Hillary Clinton is not one of the, she does not represent my valies. Plese include me in the poll of older white, females (life long democrat) who will not vote for HRC

[Edward G. Rendell]

Jennifer Postenciano=Karl Rove

You know, I keep seeing the same stuff on the comments. I don't believe Hillary or her supporters believe this stuff. I'm left to think these are Rush Limbaugh fans.

[Lynne Brauning]

I really want to see a black man or woman in the white house, but not this one. He is a empty shirt with poor judgement. Have you all tried cocaine? Do you smoke even after all the reports that you are killing yourself? Do you listen every week to someone who uses scape-goating to promote his church? Will you meet with terrorist? Change, change, change is a rock and roll song, not a rock solid solution to the US problems.

[Ronnie]

She's a frog all right. The water has been boiling since February, yet she stays in the pot an slowly boils to death. Jennifer P.'s comments above reflect a tortured, slightly deranged mind. Get help Jennifer, you sound like you could use it.

[Joe Hannes]

To Allison in California: Since when, and in which part of the US Constitution, do "polls" determine the nominee more than "votes"? If HRC cannot be gracious, that's OK; but that does not mean that all her supporters should jump off the cliff too. Or?

[alma ludivina]

Remember bill Clinton get paid 400, 000.00 per speech he must make as many pathetic appearences as possible, sp the money is spend "appropiatelly".

she said "My Oponnent outspend me 4 to 1" it means that if senator Obama spend total of 200 million in campaing she only spend 50 million, the rest is for bill clinton..HA HA

I want 100% of Michigan and Florida delegates with my magic wand I will disappear Senator Obama and his backers in this two states. I am the only one who exist the others are death. HA HA HA.

Mrs Geraldine Ferraro said at FOX 2 days ago that all superdelegates were "SPINELESS". Next day
Mrs. Clinton wrote superdelegates a letter: I think I am the best candidate, choose me, Did she address them as "Dear Spineless Superdelegates"?

[Derek]

It's like the movie "Election"-- Blinded by ambition. Anything to win. What ever happened to good sportsmanship? What we're witnessing is almost Shakesperian, only Hillary's political-complex extends to her support base. When her generation eventually washes away, gone with it will subside the last vestiges of America's deep seated social racism. Our young generation watches with curiosity. We then turn to the Lakers win the right to play in the finals-- a team made up of half white and half black players, with a quarter of the white players being of European immigrants-- this is the new generation taking the Clintons generation's place-- the races joining together to achieve the highest goal!

[Chris Rutan]

The only frog analogy that applies is the one about the frog that does not kow enough to get out of hot water before getting cooked.

[NinaK]

jennifer potenciano, all that hatred spewing and what did you say?? Nothing of consequnce. I do need to correct you on one thing...Senator Obama did not throw anything or everything at Hilliary!! It WAS HILLIARY WHO THREW ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING, INCLUDING THE KITCHEN SINK, AT SENATOR OBAMA. Oh what webs we weave when we practice to decieve. Lying and making up crapola is not good for your soul. I won't bother to correct you on the rest of your tirade....not worth wasting my time!

[S]

Well there is also a story about a frog in a well, which better suits Hillary at the moment.

[David]

Hillary Clinton has descended to the point where she is just plain pathetic. A national joke.

[JS]

I can't believe she would stoop to this level...she's a sexist frog hater...how dare she!!!!

[Phil]

"...gifted policy wonk..."

Perhaps you meant grifted policy wonk. Really, there's almost no evidence Clinton has mastered any matter of public policy whatsoever, nor that she has a creative response to problems or an ability to extract creative response from staff. Her grift is established. Her policy wonkiness is rumor and illusion.

[Jerry EZ, TEXAS]

For the Hillary ignorants, here is some info you should know and I have helped you research some KNOWN truths about Hillary and as the OBAMA supporters know, Hillary is not electable and NOT truly being endorsed by Republicans, it is simple, the wolf pack Republicans will destroy Hillary, too much junk in the trunk and then there's Bill, they don't have much substance on Barack Obama (Rev. Wright is not of substance). I wonder why no mention of the Clintons mentor well known self proclaimed KKKlansman Sen. William Fulbright of Arkansas has not ever been mentioned or Norman Hsu? Hillary is BROKE in her campaign, she has LIED to the public and to her supporters claiming this large amount of donations coming in and the so called 17 million votes, which are in part by Republican interference, but she forgot to mention it was her LOANS, now in the hole $22 MILLION. She can't run a campaign budget how can she run our country? Her poor planning of this primary campaign, she was the inevitable winner from the start, see she can't even plan well!
Just a few Facts on Hillary:
Corruption:
Outsourcing-H1B visas:
NAFTA 1995:
Clinton business with Communist China and India:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clintonchina13apr13,0,499290.story
Campaign Fraud:
Case Summary: go to link and refer to case number for report:
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummary/index.asp
Case Number: BC304174
PETER F PAUL VS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

Filing Date: 10/14/2003
Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings

06/20/2008 at 09:00 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Contempt Hearing (**EVIDENTIARY HEARING Set Per Hrg.of 5/27/08**)

08/08/2008 at 08:31 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Further Status Conference

CLINTON HILLARY RODHAM - Defendant/Respondent

CLINTON WILLIAM JEFFERSON - Defendant/Respondent

D. COLETTE WILSON ATTORNEY AT LAW - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

DOYEN MICHAEL R. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE - Defendant/Respondent

1) HRC Recants on Florida and Michigan votes (MSNBC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wX99qUo3Ow
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html

2) Hillary/FOX O'Reilly God bless rich people. Elitist comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsiVAODpIks

Of course the list goes on and on and will continue as the Clintons can't stay away from lies, corruption and scandal, like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush(TWO FOR ONE!). America, Do we need this crap AGAIN for another four years with SLICK BILLARY?

[Jerry EZ, TEXAS]

For the Hillary ignorants, here is some info you should know and I have helped you research some KNOWN truths about Hillary and as the OBAMA supporters know, Hillary is not electable and NOT truly being endorsed by Republicans, it is simple, the wolf pack Republicans will destroy Hillary, too much junk in the trunk and then there's Bill, they don't have much substance on Barack Obama (Rev. Wright is not of substance). I wonder why no mention of the Clintons mentor well known self proclaimed KKKlansman Sen. William Fulbright of Arkansas has not ever been mentioned or Norman Hsu? Hillary is BROKE in her campaign, she has LIED to the public and to her supporters claiming this large amount of donations coming in and the so called 17 million votes, which are in part by Republican interference, but she forgot to mention it was her LOANS, now in the hole $22 MILLION. She can't run a campaign budget how can she run our country? Her poor planning of this primary campaign, she was the inevitable winner from the start, see she can't even plan well!
Just a few Facts on Hillary:
Corruption:
Outsourcing-H1B visas:
NAFTA 1995:
Clinton business with Communist China and India:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clintonchina13apr13,0,499290.story
Campaign Fraud:
Case Summary: go to link and refer to case number for report:
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummary/index.asp
Case Number: BC304174
PETER F PAUL VS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

Filing Date: 10/14/2003
Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings

06/20/2008 at 09:00 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Contempt Hearing (**EVIDENTIARY HEARING Set Per Hrg.of 5/27/08**)

08/08/2008 at 08:31 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Further Status Conference

CLINTON HILLARY RODHAM - Defendant/Respondent

CLINTON WILLIAM JEFFERSON - Defendant/Respondent

D. COLETTE WILSON ATTORNEY AT LAW - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

DOYEN MICHAEL R. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE - Defendant/Respondent

1) HRC Recants on Florida and Michigan votes (MSNBC)

2) Hillary/FOX O'Reilly God bless rich people. Elitist comment

Of course the list goes on and on and will continue as the Clintons can't stay away from lies, corruption and scandal, like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush(TWO FOR ONE!). America, Do we need this crap AGAIN for another four years with SLICK BILLARY?

[Jerry EZ]

Let's see if Hillary is electable: She and Slick Willie are ELITIST- ties to the Illuminati and Trilateral group, LONG history of corruption, money laundering, Bills' suspicious 11th hour commutes and pardons of CONVICTED drug lords and dealers, pardoned Hillary's snowhound brother for lobbing Bill for some favors, fraudsters, money launderers (Mark Rich) whose wife (BRIBED) donated heavily to the Clinton Library including some very suspicious people from foreign countries Canada, Saudi Arabia, Communist China, and India of course the list goes and will continue as the Clintons can't stay away from lies, corruption and scandal, like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush(TWO FOR ONE!).

Let's talk whatz up! Hillary lied about knowing fund raiser Peter Paul and is presently being sued, lied about returning money from known criminal NORMAN HSU from Communist China, LIED about her HUGE donations insisting she was receiving record amounts in such a little amount of time, since March she has LOANED her campaign $22 MILLION and is in a DEEP hole which she still OWES vendors and payroll, LIED about SNIPER fire in Bosnia, LIED about NAFTA which ended up being SLICK WILLIE in Canada and told them not to worry about what is being said (Canada's ambassador to Washington, Michael Wilson, was forced to resign for spreading rumors it was Obama's camp), Hillary LIED about not recognizing the Florida and Michigan votes ( She is losing and now she wants them counted), she LIED to women saying she is for them (where was Hillary's support for womans rights when Bill shamed those women at the White House, Flowers and Monica?) Women where is your support for those women that have been wronged in the same manner?

The list is just so long, Hillary/McCain made a BAD 3am decision to give Cheney (OOps, Bush) the O.k for war in Iraq and Iran ( Which is part of the Illuminati plan, NEW WORLD ORDER)

Hillary/McCain 3AM call on POOR judgment in diplomacy with China (Stressing Bush to boycott the Olympics), Obama said to use something that Hillary and McSame don't have a experience in, it is called diplomacy first.

Hillary POOR experience in using words like "we will obliterate Iran..." for that she and the USA received complaints from members of the UN and IRAN. Not smart, Hillary!

America, Do we need this crap AGAIN for another four years with SLICK BILLARY?

Time for CHANGE and REAL EXPERIENCE! OBAMA for President 2008/2012

[Voice of Reason]

This is novel:
Obama haters are calling his willingness to come clean about doing drugs as a bad thing, and then torturing the logic enough to think he will promote drugs to the kids. You elected George Bush to the White House and he was still snorting coke at Camp David while his daddy was running the White House. Which is worse: a man who denies his drug problem, or the man who admits it AND even got help to help it?

You Hillary/McCain supporters are pretty damned uppity and have quite a bit of nerve to try and slander Obama for lies he never made, and to glorify Hillary as a saint. Last I recall Obama never said he came under sniper fire in Africa or brought up assassination as a possibility for why he would win against Hillary. YET, you would hold him guilty by association to his reverend, his ability to be reasonable to make peace with the world, and oh, what the hell, because he doesn't wear an American flag on his lapel.

Get back to your core issues before the political campaign begins to miss them: Flag burning and Immigrations...you hypocritical dunderheads.

[David Elliott Bell]

To Allison in California,

The Gallup poll you cite does not support your conclusion. See the analysis of purple states won by each candidate under the heading "Bottom Line". The two candidates are roughly equal there:

"However, just focusing on the swing states in Clinton's and Obama's respective win columns, the two are fairly similar. Clinton beats McCain in her purple states (including Florida and Michigan) by 49% to 43%, while Obama slightly trails McCain (43% to 46%) in these states -- a nine-point swing in the gap in Clinton's favor. Conversely, Obama beats McCain in his purple states (49% to 41%), while Clinton trails McCain by one point, 45% to 46%, in the same states -- also a nine-point swing in the gap in Obama's favor.

"Clinton's main advantage is that her states -- including Florida and Michigan -- represent nearly twice as many Electoral College votes as Obama's. However, removing Florida and Michigan from the equation, her purple states are about comparable to Obama's in electoral vote size, and thus the two appear more evenly situated."