I'm sorry I wasn't clear....I was speaking to the headline as it relates to the rat primaries and rat nomination, regardless of red state/blue state.
hillary’s claim has always been she is more competitive in competitive states, and I believe she is right.
(Michigan/Florida/Ohio)
Except for psychological reasons, it just doesn't make sense to claim to be the king or queen of the Rat primary “popular” vote.
I used the 632k+ win for Obama in the illinois primary as an example of the winner of the total popular vote being skewered, as Illinois electoral votes will go rat in the general anyway. For awhile, that 632k+ (it's now up to 650k) margin was the exact margin of Obama’s popular vote lead.
And hillary won Puerto Rico by 141k + - yet PR can't vote in the general presidential election, what good is counting the popular here...
She also won NY by 300k+ votes. I believe NY also goes RAT in the general, regardless.
Course, if there really is a michelle- whitey tape - and it's shown ?
Obama won at least three of those states (Iowa, Nevada and Wisconsin).
Most other states are likely to either follow their previous form, or any change in their results would render all these other states meaningless. If the Republican were to win Pennsylvania or the Democrat were to win Florida, for example, then I don't see how this would occur without most or all of these closely-contested states ending up in the winning candidate's column.