The usually loathsome Bush-buddy, and Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis, on CNN last night:

Let me give you a very interesting statistic. Hillary Clinton has won the big states, and the major states that are at issue in battleground, that go back and forth between elections.

Underlying that argument is Obama's relative weakness with older white working-class voters. That hasn't shown up in every state, but it did in Ohio and could in Pennsylvania.

Lanny is essentially pushing the argument that Obama can't win if he can't hold Democrats in PA -- which leaned Kerry in '04 -- and pick up support in OH -- which leaned Bush.

But that's only a compelling argument if you think recent history dictates a limited number of battleground states -- that it's OH or bust.

A new 50-state poll from Survey USA shows that Obama would beat McCain while losing PA, and even NJ by a hair.

Clinton beats McCain too, with slightly less electoral votes. She relies on bigger states, four less total states than Obama. It's also a more tenuous lead, with fewer states offering her big margins.

But Obama broadens the map, winning 24 states, plus a partial victory in Nebraska where you can get electoral college votes by congressional district.

Whatever weakness that shows up in the northeast is more than compensated by putting states in the West and the Plains, as well as VA, in play.

While the Clinton team likes to dismiss smaller states, having more appeal in small states helps with widening majorities in Congress, especially because small states have just as many Senators as big ones.

Of course, a poll this early is not a final predictor. But it shows what's possible.

While the grayer Clinton team acts as if the 1990s represent the best we can do, this is a reminder that things can change for the better.

If the question is which candidate has more potential to grow the party, broaden it's geographical reach, boost it's numbers in Congress, Obama still has the leg up.

No matter what happens in PA next month.