Reply #34: Clark was weak in Mich, and there's nothing to suggest he has a ton of... [View All]

[AP]

...appeal in any the rust belt swing states. (In Mich, he was 5th place with 6.7% in a race that took place at the same time he was pulling thirds in TN and VA). Even though he didn't campaign in IA, people knew he was running, and only 15 out of 13.5K voted for him.

And I know that he dropped out and endorsed Kerry, but there are no bright spots in MN, IN, IL, WI, etc. Eg, MN: 177 votes out of 54,000 cast, on March 2, only ahead of Lieberman. If he got, say, 3,000, I might not be so worried about his appeal there. But MN is a close state Dems can actually win, so you better be sure you're running a candidate whose message says something to Minnesotans (and Wisconsins, and Ohioans, and Michiganders).

I wouldn't want to pick a candidate who was O.K. (according to a questionable measure, which I'll address below) in AZ and NM while sacrificing the midwest.

To put things in perspective about those NM and AZ second places: Kerry got over 100% more votes than Clark in NM, while Dean was only 20% behind Clark.

So, it's not like he was going to do much better than Kerry in NM -- he was half as popular as Kerry, and if Dean only got 25% better, according to this logic, he'd be a better choice for winning NM than Clark. (Incidentally, Kerry Lost NM by .79%). By the way, I think all the government labs in NM made them like the vietnam vets -- that's the vibe I got.

In AZ, Kerry got 66% more votes than Clark (however, Clark doubled up Dean). Kerry lost AZ 55:45. So Clark's going to have to get much much more popular in AZ to actually make a difference in AZ. (And remember, McCain will be campaigning for the Republicans in AZ.)