Really?

Jerome Armstrong…

Obama has a huge electability problem in the state. He took a total of 5 counties, and lost in 82 counties...You don't win a general election in Ohio if you can only win in 5 counties.

I mean, I've got to admit, the map's pretty impressive…



…but couldn't it just as well be said that Hillary Clinton has a huge electability problem in a state where she can't win the five counties that contain more than half the state's population?

It's the same thing as those US maps showing those huge patches of red covering the 'empty' states. Hillary's 82 counties have fewer citizens combined than Barack's five.

Of course, it doesn’t say much about how either might fare against John McCain in November, which is, or should be, a far different dynamic. That is, unless the argument is that the March Clinton and the November McCain will be indistinguishable to the Democratic regulars that provided most of Clinton's margin. Or are we supposed to believe the well has been so poisoned that none of Clinton's support is transferable? That most of it isn't? And why, I wonder, might that be?

What's more likely is that she's likely to do better in Columbus and Obama's likely to do better in the hinterlands than this map shows. In other words, the probability is that Clinton will be a lot more popular in Cincinnati and Obama will take a lot more than five counties come November. If anything, Obama's edge with wayward R's and independents is something Clinton's less likely to replicate in the fall, creating an electablity issue of another kind.