109.

I noticed something about the Democratic nomination race while looking through the Financial Times' interactive delegate map.

From state to state, region to region, the race between Clinton and Obama has been far from close on the local level.

In New Hampshire, Clinton beat Obama by 3%. Same story in Texas. But except for those two states, the votes have been sharply divided. It's common for the winner to have scored in the 50's or 60's, with the opponent trailing scores of points behind. Such was the story in Washington (68-31 Obama), Wyoming (61-38 Obama), Arkansas (69-27 Clinton), and Maine (59-40 Obama). Even Maryland - my home state - went for a Obama by a whopping 22% over Clinton.

What does this mean? Well on the surface, of course, it suggests that Clinton and Obama are not interchangeable. In past elections, I've heard voters moan that the candidates all bear an eerie resemblance to each other, even across party lines. One of the reasons may be the median voter theorem (as any adequate political science student knows) but the other may just be that politics is a factory from which everyone emerges looking roughly the same. (Or did I just say the same thing twice?)

Nonetheless, it seems that the states that want Obama really want Obama, whereas the states that want Hillary will brook no opposition either. This could be a problem for the Democrats when the time rolls around for a national election. By then, unlikely as it seems, the Dems will have one candidate, who will face the unpleasant task of quelling the dissent in his own ranks long after McCain has quelled the dissent in his. Of course pundits are calling on Dems to unite behind their man/woman/etc, but the question is, do they know if they even can? Maybe the differential between Clinton and Obama suggests vastly divergent opinions on where America should head, or what it should look like, or any other irreconcilable difference. Since the days of FDR, the party has specialized in covering as many people as possible with its vast and growing umbrella. After all, how could progressives turn anyone away? How could the people not be heard?

Well, they've been heard. And they don't all want the same thing.

Of course, one could argue that Reagan and to a greater extent W have turned conservatism into a populist - even revolutionary - movement, and that inclusivity is no longer a purely Democratic problem.