Clinton’s Path to the Nomination Runs Through the Rustbelt

Let’s step away from jockeying and the betting for one minute and imagine that Clinton wins Ohio. It’s not an entirely absurd proposition. The Buckeye State is very moderate, and the bulk of Ohio Democrats are much like the Massachusetts Democrats who handed Clinton her victory in their state. Despite Clinton’s familial ties to NAFTA, she’s now advocating a time-out strategy (which makes her sound more like a pre-school teacher than a presidential hopeful, I admit) in which no new deals can be made among the trade bloc. Clinton’s position on trade makes her very popular in this economically distressed manufacturing reliant pocket of the country, as does her moderate and pragmatic approach to politics. But I digress…

So she wins Ohio tomorrow. If she wins Texas, this is anyone’s game and the Latino community gets a big sloppy beso from Bill and Hillary. The true believers are suddenly revived, start giving money, and Mark Penn can breathe again. But let’s say she doesn’t. Let’s say she just wins Ohio. Most of the pundits that I watched this morning as I tried to elliptical my way to a better butt agreed that if she doesn’t win both states, the game is over and Obama is the nominee. But if Clinton wins Ohio, isn’t there a very powerful argument to be made that Clinton is winning where it counts? In 2004, Kerry lost Ohio to Bush by less than 140,000 votes. In the swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, where the General election can be decided on the smallest of margins, shouldn’t we be choosing the nominee who has edged out the competition? Even though Clinton was the only Democrat on the ticket in Florida, we witnessed an absolute deluge of support on her behalf. Ego and pride aside, isn’t it worth going to Pennsylvania and going for a three-for-three strategy in the three states that decided the 2004 election?

Perhaps this is all wonky wonkette talk and the type of strategy that only resonates in the beltway. Real Americans care about much more, I know, and Democrats are hungry to arrive at a nominee. But while we complain about 2000, and 2004, what lessons are we drawing from those losses? Doesn’t Clinton owe it to her supporters and those who crave deliverable change to see this through to the end? We’ll know very soon…