Hillary Clinton's campaign contends that she is stronger than Barack Obama in the big swing states that have mattered so much in past presidential elections -- Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, specifically -- and so she should be the democratic nominee for president. 

In response to that argument the Obama campaign came out on yesterday with a memo ostensibly written by governors of “big” states that he has won so far this year. They make two main arguments: (1) “Obama has won 7 of 9 of the biggest states that were close in the 2004 presidential election and have already selected delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention;” and (2) “more than 55% of [Hillary’s] popular vote total and nearly half of her pledged delegates have come in just five states,” and “[i]n four of them, polls show that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.” New York and California are probably democratic in November no matter what, and Texas is likely Republican no matter what. But, notably, the numbers provided by the campaign show that Obama is five points stronger than Clinton against McCain in Ohio and the two candidates are basically even in New Jersey. 

So, the Clinton campaign must be saying that she’s the better general election nominee because she has a better chance of beating McCain in Pennsylvania and Florida. Well, the good folks at www.pollster.com have provided some numbers on that point. According to their data, John McCain beats Clinton by about 5 points in Florida, and he beats Obama by about 9 points in the Sunshine State. Not much of a difference, especially since neither has ever even campaigned there (or so say their campaigns, even though I have a distinct recollection of seeing Hillary waving while stepping off a plane in Florida a day or two before that state’s primary). It must be Pennsylvania then. Nope. Pollster’s numbers show that Clinton loses to McCain in PA by a point or two, and Obama beats him by a point or two. And, if Pennsylvania is anything like Ohio, which the Clintons insist it is, then her current 20 point advantage in that state will be whittled down to low single digits at the most by the time the voters go to the polls, and as Obama’s popularity rises against Hillary so too in some measure will his strength against John McCain. 

By the way, Pollster’s numbers are not quite as optimistic as the Obama campaign’s numbers in Ohio and New Jersey, but they’re close; the lesson is that Obama’s numbers in those states against McCain are about the same as or better than Clinton’s.

Furthermore, the Clinton campaign’s taking of PA, FL and OH as in her column (but not in Obama’s) for the general election, and essential to democratic victory in November, ignores, probably intentionally, two things. First, Obama changes the electoral landscape from how it has been in past elections. Polls show that Obama wins decisively against McCain in potential democratic pickup states like Iowa and Nevada while Clinton loses there by significant margins. Second, in the critical swing state of Wisconsin, Obama beats McCain while Clinton trails by 11. So the Clintons’ reliance on these states as necessarily determinative of the general election is misplaced, and it seeks to obscure her weakness and Obama’s strength in other significant states that, because of Obama’s broader appeal (he’s won 30 states, she 14), would be in play for him but are not winnable for her.

But in the face of all this evidence showing that Clinton has no discernable advantage over Obama in the "big swing states," her campaign still clings to the talking point that since she beat Obama in Ohio by 5 points, she beat him in an illegitimate election in Florida where nobody campaigned, and she’s ahead in the polls in Pennsylvania, she should be the democratic candidate. Note what this really means: in light of Obama’s now almost inevitable lead come convention time in pledged delegates and in the popular vote, the super-delegates should insert their supposed electoral wisdom and override what will have been at that point more than 8 months and 50 states of voting. 

The Clinton campaign's reasoning is hollow. Taken as a whole she fares no better in the supposed "big swing states" against John McCain than Barack Obama does, and she fails to appeal to voters in states like Iowa and Wisconsin where Obama could very well defeat McCain. What’s worse than the Clinton campaign's distortions is that the media is not calling her on them.