WV was one of the few states where McCain outperformed Bush. Hillary would have come closer, but she wouldn't have won it. Same goes for AR.
That's not accurate.
You can't just take Barack Obama's numbers, nationally and state by state, and figure, "Well, what's good for Barack Obama is good enough for Hillary Clinton; and, of course, no need to think more deeply on this topic."
Instead of Barack Obama, it would have been Hillary Clinton as the 2008 Democratic nominee. So, you have to consider how she would have performed nationally with the demographic groups which include male-vs.-female (Obama won over males nationally with 49 percent; he carried females nationally with 56 percent), the voting-age groups (Would Hillary have seen seniors shift from R+5, from 2004, to R+8, from 2008, had she rather than Obama been her party's nominee?), and race.
I also think that with Hillary as the nominee you might have seen lower youth voter turnout, not sure what effect that would have nationally.
