Stephen Colbert finds a bit of a logic flaw in the Clinton campaign claim that what matters most in the head to head for the Democratic nomination is that she's winning the big states.
Barack Obama has a big problem here. Sure, he’s winning a lot, but they’re just little states, like Maryland, Washington and Illinois. Hillary, Hillary is winning all the big states and everybody knows that if you win the big states in the party primary, you automatically win them in the general election. For example, did you know that the Democrat who won the Texas primary went on to win Texas in the general election in every one of the last eight elections? Therefore, Hillary will naturally win Texas in the general election. Now I’m not saying that Hillary Clinton doesn’t face some challenges, after all, John McCain won Texas in the Republican primary, which means by the same logic McCain will also win Texas in the general election. And folks, thanks to electronic voting, that might be possible. As for the states that neither Hillary nor McCain won in the primaries, I assume they will simply cease to exist. Now, the Obamamaniacs out there are saying, “Oh but Stephen, he won 26 states to her 16; he’s leading in the popular vote.” But, it’s not how many votes you get, it’s the geographic boundaries that contain those votes. Getting ten million votes in one state is way better than getting twelve million votes split between 2 states. So if Obama wants to compete, he’s going to have to win some big states, but there’s only one big states left: Pennsylvania. So his only chance here his only chance is to start making big states out of the small states he’s already won
As Colbert says in the end, the only thing that matters is that people think that's a strong argument. Looking right at you, Timmeh.