Top 5 (Okay, 6) Reasons for “Supervoters” Why the Clinton “Big State” Strategy and Argument is a House of Cards

1.) It lost the last two elections.

2.) When Bill Clinton, in South Carolina, pushed the double-speak of “Obama-can’t-win-but-they-would-make-a-dream-ticket” line, he reasoned it would be because of what he implied was Obama’s “urban” draw. Yes. That same old map – with Hillary taking what would be, according to conventional wisdom, Republican territory in a general election. As if Clinton will really compete there. Anyone seen her “negatives” amongst Democrats, let alone Republicans?

3.) This is further undercut by Obama’s wins in those “small states.” You know, where there are a lot of those “white” working class voters that Clinton says are her “base.” Am I missing something here? I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt Obama is going continue to bring new voters to the polls and pad the popular vote – state by state. (“There are not blue states and red states…there are the United States…blah, blah, blah.”)

4.) Clinton’s latest double-speak where behind closed doors she continues to say Obama can’t win, but when pushed said that not only does Clinton think Obama can beat McCain, but she also said she’ll do “anything” she can to make sure a Democrat takes the Whitehouse following November’s election. That would make the “Big State” strategy moot anyway, right? I mean, since she’ll bring it home for the Dems anyway?

5.) The reason Obama’s message has resonated with large chunks of the electorate is because it transcends the micro-poll messaging and targeting that leads to a divided electorate – currently playing itself out with the Clinton “Big State” (and 50% + 1, slash and burn, kitchen sink) strategy in exit polling, showing the same old divides of class, race, gender, religion, region, etc., etc., etc.

6.) Playing devil’s advocate (you know, “we’re only toughening Obama up for the general when the Republican attack machine really comes after whoever’s the nominee”) still makes you an advocate for, um, the devil. Uh, did I mention Clinton’s negatives?

In the end, what Obama has bet on is that changing the electoral map can transcend what a friend of mine calls the “tyranny of the six percent” (you know – so many agree with you and so many disagree with you and you go after the rest) that leads to micro-poll messaging and targeting and 50 % + 1 tactical elections (oh yeah, and two-party corporate control of the electoral system – oops did I say that?) where solutions and progress get lost in the margins of the “undecideds” and special interests.

This race is down to a debate about strategy. Obama's team has shown throughout the primary campaign that it is clearly better at strategy, and Clinton's house of cards is showing that Obama's strategy is clearly better for the general election.

Karlos Gauna Schmieder is a media and communications strategist from Albuquerque, NM, currently living in the Bay Area. The views expressed here are his own, and do not reflect the views of the organizations he has worked for or currently works for -- they're non-profits, folks...