« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Clinton's Electoral College Electability Advantage: Unfortunately, It's Real
I have been engaged in a long-running debate over who is more "electable", Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I am the Obama supporter in this relationship.
I used numbers from the web site FiveHundredThirtyEight.com (highly recommended for political sabermatricians) to break the states into seven categories.
The first category is "Solid Blue": these are states that
either Clinton or Obama would have at least a 90% certainty of
carrying. There are 7 such states (CA, NY, MA, RI, VT and DC) with a
total of 112 electoral votes (e.v.). The next category, "Solid
Red", is for the states neither Clinton nor Obama can carry more
than 10% of the time. This group contains 12 states (TX, GA, AZ, LA,
AL, OK, KS, NE, MS, UT, ID and WY), and also has a total of exactly
112 e.v.
The remaining states are "in play", in the sense that either Clinton or Obama (usually both) have realistic chance to win, as well as a realistic chance of losing. I broke these states into five groups. There are 7 states (with 109 e.v.) where Clinton is a lot stronger than Obama, where "a lot" is defined as having at least a 20% greater chance of winning. These include many of the crucial "swing states" of recent electoral history, and they form the basis of Clinton's best arguments that she is more electable. Clinton is indeed a lot stronger in FL, PA, OH, MO, TN, KY, WV and AR.
Obama is a lot stronger than Clinton in 6 medium-sized states with a total of 58 e.v.: VA, WI, WA, CO, OR and IA. So far, the analysis seems to favor Clinton, as the states where she clearly runs better than Obama have almost twice as many e.v. as the states where he is clearly stronger (109 > 58).
However, there are also states where either Clinton or Obama has a real, but not decisive edge (an advantage of more than 5%, but less than 20%, in the candidate's chances of winning the state). Obama is somewhat better than Clinton in 12 states with 83 e.v. (IL, IN, MN, MD, CT, NM, HI, ND, SD, DE, MT and AK). Clinton is somewhat better than Obama in just 3 states with 24 e.v. (NC, NV, and NH).
That leaves 3 states with 40 e.v., that are at least nominally "in play" where neither Clinton nor Obama has a clear advantage over the other: NJ, MI and SC. Of course, NJ and SC lean strongly, blue and red respectively. MI is the only real swing state where Clinton and Obama are on an equal footing.
Overall, Clinton has an advantage over Obama in 11 states (with 109+23=132 e.v.); Obama has the edge in 18 states (with 58+83=131 e.v.). He is unlikely to win a few of the states where she is better: notably AR, WV, KY, and even FL.
* * * * *
To get to the necessary 270 electoral votes to win, Obama would need to carry:
The Solid Blue states (112 e.v.)
IL (21), NJ (15), WA (11), MD (10), MN (10), OR (7), CT (7), HI (4), RI (4), DE (3). All these are safe states for Obama. (92 e.v.)
PA (21), WI (10), CO (9), NM (5). All of these are swing states where Obama currently leads McCain. (45 e.v.)
Those states get him to 249 e.v. He needs 21 more, from among:
OH (20), MI (17), VA (13), IN (11), NV (5), NH (4). True swing states for Obama (70 e.v.)
FL (27), NC (15), MO (11), ND (3). "Reach" states, where Obama could run up the score in a blowout win (56 e.v.)
* * * * *
To get to 270 e.v., Clinton would need to win:
The Solid Blue states (112 e.v.)
NJ (15), AR (6), RI (4). These too are safe states for Clinton. (25 e.v.)
FL (27), IL (21), PA (21), OH (20), WA (11), MD (10), MN (10), CT (7), OR (7), NM (5), WV (5), NV (5), HI (4), DE (3). All of these are states where Clinton currently leads McCain. (156 e.v.)
Those states get her to 293 e.v., more than enough to win. And she could realistically get more, from among:
MI (17), MO (11), IN (11), WI (10), KY (8), IA (7), NH (4). True swing states for Clinton (68 e.v.)
NC (15), TN (11), CO (9). "Reach" states, where Clinton could run up the score in a blowout win (35 e.v.)
* * * * *
To summarize, either Obama or Clinton could reasonably win the Electoral College using these numbers. Clinton could win with just the states she has now, whereas Obama can't say that: Advantage Clinton. On the other hand, Obama's base of safe states is significantly larger than Clinton's (204 e.v. > 137). But all in all, this level of Electoral College analysis does favor Clinton's electability over Obama's.
==============
Am I entirely persuaded? No, I'm not, for several reasons. For one thing, it's much too early to look at polls to determine who is going to win in November. Also, it has been several weeks now that Obama's attacks have been primarily directed against McCain. Ever since North Carolina and Indiana, Hillary Clinton has been running pretty much unopposed, which I think tends to inflate her polling numbers beyond what they would be if a real nomination contest were still underway. Finally, I am convinced that if Clinton was somehow able to persuade the superdelegates to wrest the nomination away from Obama, the result would be a disastrously divided convention. I do not think Clinton could win in that scenario.
=================
If I don't believe Clinton can win, then what, I hear you asking, is the point of this exercise?
First, I want to acknowledge that Clinton people can do math, and that there is some genuine substance to Clinton's electability arguments. (I went into this little project thinking that there was less to her arguments than I now believe there is.)
Second, I want to point out how crucial a swing state Michigan is, especially if Obama is the nominee. I'm quite afraid Hillary Clinton is going to be tempted to demagogue the Michigan primary results, vetoing any reasonable compromise, to the point that it will seriously hurt Obama's chances of winning that state. She shouldn't do this, for her own sake as well as the party's. The party will not forgive her if she is seen as the Ralph Nader of 2008 -- the person who, for the sake of her ego, cost the Democrats the election.
Third, I want to focus my fellow Obama's suporters on the highly solvable but crucial problem of getting Obama past 270. That is going to mean working long, hard and respectfully to bring Clinton's supporters on board. Please, let's save the victory laps for November. It's going to mean we can't simply dismiss as "old politics" anything anyone tells us that we'd rather not hear. It's going to mean doing everything we can to win in Ohio and Michigan, the two most winnable big swing states for Obama. And I know a lot of my fellow Obamaphiles don't want to hear this, but I believe it's going to mean naming a Clinton loyalist to the ticket.
Let's all try to remember the salutory example of Karl ("You have your math; I have the math") Rove. Let's not kid ourselves -- we're going to have to be smart and realistic, as well as idealistic, if we're going to win in November.
Comments (39)
If you're right and MI is one of the most important swing states, then be aware that the recent polling there is extremely flawed:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/why-polls-in-may-even-by-surve.php
I think PA and MI are locks to remain blue because the GOP name is so tarnished this year. I think Ohio remains red and probably Florida as well. MN, WI, and IA all go for Obama and he will win VA, CO, and either NV or NM.
McCain's money woes and lack of energized base of volunteers for GOTV kill GOP turnout efforts.
May 30, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're right about MI, and wrong about OH. We could really use both states.
May 31, 2008 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blah-blah-blah. Are you using the Karl Rove map, too, and other analysis out there that has been proven to be flawed? Have you heard about the "new" swing states that will change the face of the electoral map? Or shall we pretend nothing changes, ever.
Here's a newsflash: No Democrat has won shit without the black vote. Or the progressive vote.
In a 3-person race, her supporters are hardened against Obama right now. Democratic women will vote Democratic and Obama will bring a legion of new voters of all ages and walks of life to the polls who otherwise stay home because of the pathetic politics as usual of the DLC and the Repubs. And why would Repubs and independents vote for Hillary when her foreign policy is identical to McCain's? If they see Republican-lite they'll vote Republican.
Your figures mean nothing if Hillary Clinton has so seriously damaged the black vote for Democrats. And that includes down-ticket races, too. A blow for the Democrats of breathless proportions.
Every time I hear about Barack's "white" problem I want to hear about Hillary's "black" problem, a problem she created.
If you think the racists in Appalachia are the future of America, good for you. I want my country to join the 21st century and stop this crap.
May 30, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
My post is largely about Obama's electoral map -- the ways that it is like Clinton's, and the ways their two maps are different.
May 31, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is the one making phony charges of deliberate racism over every gaffe committed by a Hillary supporter and excusing every similar gaffe made by someone like Biden. He has succeeded in damaging part-- but not all -- of her standing in the black community.
Obama had to get black support in order to obtain the nomination. He was faced with an opponent who was reasonably well liked in the black community. The means that Obama used to obtain black support has -- as was predictable -- damaged party cohesion. He was willing to gamble the structure of the party and the fate of the Nation in the November elections in order to advance his own personal political interests. I am not interested in having someone willing to take that large of risk with the nation's future in search of his own personal advantage in the Oval Office. Too much of a risk-taker and too selfish.
Blatant sexism and false charges and cruelty and mockery which are rampant in his mentors and supporters are only lamely rebuked by him. There is also prejudice against whites in some of his black supporters.
Michigan has gone narrowly to the Democratic side on the strength of the union -- largely white vote -- with high percentage but low turn out help from blacks in Detroit. Obama should get an even higher percentage of the black turnout and the turnout should be much higher. He is somewhat handicapped by the Kwame Kilpatrick scandals which have disrupted the political machinery in Detroit. My guess is that there are going to be major desertions by the Reagan Democrats who are often pro military and anti choice and highly patriotic and from older women -- particularly those who are politicaly active and who know that Obama turned down a personal plea from Deb Dingell that he remain on the ballot. Anglachel says that Deb Dingell believed she had a commitment from him to remain on the ballt until the night before he took his name off. It was widely reported in Michigan that Obama took his own name off at the same time he was going around the nation lying that the rules required that he do so. So he has a major credibility gap in Michigan which makes it hard to believe his assurances regarding his nastier supporters and associates.
McCain is reasonably well liked. Quite a number of Democrats already voted for him in primaries trying to block Bush. He is currently runnning a good ad here.
Hillary can will the GE going away according to the current analysis at FiveThirtyEight while Obama has a squeaker in the Electoral College.
How many more Pflegers, Jesse Jackson, Jr and Wrights can occur before white women in particular decide to hold their noses and vote for McCain?
May 31, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's kind of funny that nobody can actually find that "blatant sexism" you and Ferraro keep going on about.
May 31, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen to that.
I think they take it as "blatant sexism" if one doesn't take on board the reverse sexism that is such a large part of the Clinton campaign's political calculation. I've heard Clinton supporters say that it is time for a woman to be president far too many times.
June 1, 2008 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excellent, concise discussion of the problem. On an honest, balanced board, this piece would fit very well beside the "Recommended" (20) WALDENGIRL post above (also an excellent, somewhat contrary analysis). They should be read in combination.
I think when one gets into the details of all the available polling data (congratulations to BOTH of you for doing that so thoroughly), one begins to see the difficulty of relying too heavily on that information to conclusively make ANY point.
At best, you are deep in the weeds of the somewhat subjective interperetation of shifting nuance. Almost everything that can be said about this baffling election is a close call either way.
I think you are right to judge that Sen. Clinton holds a slight EV edge NOW, by the best fair-minded, objective effort to study the figures. I'm sure others would reserve the right to disagree, but I think I'd rather argue your case, than have to try to argue theirs.
That said, what does it all mean? I suspect too little, if one is a Clinton supporter. It lacks the sort of certain definition that would allow an SD in good conscience to say, "My God! I've got to vote Clinton." It IS an excellent argument for the unity you propose. That unity could very well be the difference between winning and losing.
May 30, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks very much for the cross-posted recommendation, and to all who recommended this.
May 31, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want poll dates. With only a few exceptions, polling stopped once a state primary or caucus was held. According to electoral-vote.com and realclearpolitics.com, the majority of states--perhaps small or supposedly "obviously" safe for one party or the other--have polls as old as February or March. This means that they're effectively un-polled.
If you don't believe me, why do May polling averages even 2-3 weeks old show Obama even with Clinton in the McCain matchup in NY and CA?
Even a one month old poll doesn't reflect where we are now. If enough of these outdated results are added together, you get a map that's simply wrong.
May 30, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I'm not blaming you, Don. I'm just ranting. In a few weeks we're going to see a flood of new GE polls on Obama v. McCain and start really seeing how much we're going to cream this turkey. Or chip this beef. Or something.
May 30, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Don,
Interesting article.
The website is http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ (not fivehundredthirtyeight.com).
While it's tempting to think that polling is meaningful since it has statistics behind it, it really isn't in indicating who will win an election, especially one that is over 5 months away. I think the pundits like pouring over the numbers because it can be argued that it's somehow "objective"....
I think we all need to keep in mind that the vast majority of people aren't paying attention to presidential politics right now. They're worried about paying for gasoline, whether they can afford their mortgage, and so forth. After the state's primary/caucus is over, most people go about their business.
As you say, EG or EC polls aren't meaningful now. Polls will start being meaningful after the convention. Not before.
Hillary lost the primary race, so it really doesn't matter what polls she might be marginally ahead in now. Her arguments are merely spin since she doesn't have and won't have the numbers she needs. I think in a real matchup she would still have trouble getting over 50% due to her high negatives.
I agree, up to a point, that the party needs to come together. Obama and his supporters can and should be magnanimous. But if Hillary acts like Ted Kennedy did in 1980 and continues to fight after she lost, I don't think that it'll hurt him as much as it does her. Carter was trying for re-election in a close race, so dissent was a big problem for him. Carter was also unpopular. Now, the shoe's on the other foot. Bush and the Republicans are terribly unpopular. I think it will be difficult for Obama not to win this year, so it would be foolhardy for HRC to continue to attack him and the party. McCain is going to be shown to be a terribly weak candidate by the time November rolls around.
I still expect her to end her campaign by a week from Sunday.
But we'll see.
With all that said, I enjoyed your article. :-) Thanks.
May 30, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks very much for the correction to the website address. It is indeed http://www.fivethirtyeight.com
Eliyah, the website will tell you more than I would expect anyone to want to know about the age and provenance of the poll numbers. My sense is that the numbers on the site have been assembled without any candidate's agenda in mind, which of course is no guarantee they're any good.
Thanks to everyone who read me all the way through.
May 31, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
polling numbers won't be on track till Clinton is out of the primary race. And polls this early are interesting but not accurate by any stretch. For example, polls show that Obama has 62% of the black vote in Michigan (I think it's Michigan.) There is NO WAY ON EARTH Obama is going to get a mere 62% of the black vote in the G.E.in any state when he has been getting over 90% of the black vote in the primaries against Clinton. He will do BETTER with black voters against McCain. That is how flawed these figures are now.
'Electability' arguments can only be made on the softest of numbers, and Clinton's 'electability' did not translate into delegates, so... she's out.
May 30, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don: Stop it. You have to win the primary to win the general. EVERYBODY knows this crap and has heard it 1000 times before. The main thing hurting Obamas chances in the GE is Clinton remaining in the race.
May 31, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Don,
A few things. Hillary is not being attacked. She has running unopposed over the past three weeks. Unfortunately a small percentage of voters changes their alliances as easily as the clothes they wear. Her favorables went up after she disengaged her "kitchen sink strategy" against Obama and Obama stopped engaging her. Three weeks ago she was behind at the 538 site and had been behind much of the time before that. Obama and McCain are attacking each other. So Obama and McCain's numbers drop while Hillary, who is running "unopposed" gets the bunp from the McCain/Obama battle.
So her argument are once again disingenuous.
May 31, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don-The caveat is that this polling is too early, and comes after sustained Obama and Clinton attacks, and a long McCain free-ride. I'm convinced that, the more attention McCain gets, the worse he will do in the polling.
Given that, I'll concede that Clinton may have a better shot on the electoral map. But I think that both Obama and Clinton will run roughshod over the electoral map. The question becomes, is there any reason to prefer Clinton, who may get 320 electoral votes, over Obama, who may get 310 electoral votes? If both Clinton and Obama are locks, shouldn't we care less about which one will get more votes, and care more about which one we would prefer to see in the White House?
May 31, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If both Clinton and Obama are locks, shouldn't we care less about which one will get more votes, and care more about which one we would prefer to see in the White House?"
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes!
Amazing how that is completely lost in this whole thing. They are both 'electable' in any meaningful definition of the term - it then comes down to who we actually *want*. I thought that was what the whole primary thing was for, but apparently it was simply to act as a christening mechanism for Hillary.
May 31, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Key points:
*The polling is way too early, thus totally meaningless. I think Dukakis was winning big at this date in 88. Clinton was trailing both Perot and Bush.
*HRC supporters are at the height of their unhappiness. Many or most will come back in November, thus Obama's numbers are theoretically at their lowest point.
* HRC and McCain have both been slamming Obama for a few months. It's a pile on. Even the White House has jumped in, as well as Rush Limbaugh. Their best chance to win was to knock out Obama in the primary so he doesn't become the nominee.
* McCain is at his theoretical height: The Dems, especially Obama, have been fighting and smearing each other, and both sides are unhappy with the other. McCain should be soaring. And yet he's not. And he has not even been vetted or challenged yet, nor faced scrutiny on many controversies, like the Keating Five, his adultery, etc.
The key proof of "electibility" is who wins votes. Fact is, Obama won more. He's run circles around her. At the end of the day, that's why a primary system produces better candidates, because you prove yourself at the ballot box, not in the backroom.
Obama is the superior candidate, the results are in, and they matter more than arguments.
May 31, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of wind and fire - signifying nothing.
Not a single MAY set of polls has EVER accurately reflected the Electoral Map in November.
If Polls were a legitimate means of deciding on a nominee, we would have no need for primaries, delegates, or conventions.
May 31, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
here's a response:
shut the fuck up.
who cares? hillary also has a pantsuit advantage. you know who has the real advantage? obama. he has more pledged delegates and more superdelegates.
who cares about these stupid polls that you idiots keep on citing? find something better to do with your time.
May 31, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are we concerned with Hillary's electability at this point? She is no longer in the race.
May 31, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for a very well reasoned post.
May 31, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This "electability" argument is the Clintons' fabrication to try to justify overturning the will of the voters in the Democratic primaries. There are so many reasons it is a bogus concept, some of which have been nicely addressed up thread.
But the main thing is, what kind of moral statement is it to vote for a candidate simply because she/he is more likely to win? Even if a better candidate appears at the moment slightly weaker (a debatable point anyway), should we never take a chance on the better candidate? Do you really suggest that a 1 or 2% difference in polling numbers 5 months before the GE should have any bearing on whom we vote for?
There is one group for whom electability is their main consideration: those Democratic politicians and operatives whose only concern is keeping their jobs. Those with no moral compass at all will vote to maximize the chance of keeping their paychecks and positions of privilege.
The rest of us already have voted, the winner is Obama, and the rest is Clintonian hot air.
May 31, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Massachusetts isn't necessarily solid blue if Obama is the nominee.
I've seen polls that give him a double digit lead over McCain, and I've also seen polls that give Obama just a 2 point lead over McCain.
MA's current governor's campaign was run by David Axelrod and the campaign slogan was Together We Can. Sound familiar?
Since he was elected, the citizens of Massachusetts have learned that Together We Can...have casino gambling except that they can't because he's turned out to be such a lightweight.
May 31, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Massachusetts has not gone Republican since Reagan - and isn;t going to do so this year.
[url]http://www.270towin.com/states/Massachusetts[/url]
The poll you cite is 2 months old - and was taken at the height of the 'preacher scandals'.
Obama's lead in more recent polls is 12 points (ElectoralVote.com - click on the state for polls)
May 31, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be ignoring that the public was split over the issue of gambling, and that the person mainly responsible for its defeat is now in some trouble over, what's the word, being compromised.
May 31, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've made one big error on one state (although I don't even see its initials in the analysis): Maine is not winner-takes-all. Even though it usually all goes, there is a chance that one of the electors could go the other way. I'm ignoring NE because it's listed as solid red.
You also should count in that Obama's open map could loosen up quite a few swing states by forcing McCain to compete in more states.
May 31, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well of course you are wrong. Hillary does not have an electoral college advantage over Obama because she has not won a single state in the general election of 2008. What she has is a POLLING advantage in SOME polls about five months in advance of the election. But guess what else? She is behind Obama among Democrats when their preferences are polled. And she trails among pledged delegates, votes cast, states won, and money raised. In other words, in the ONLY category that the party set as deciding the nomination, Obama has won. To take the nomination away under those circumstances, ignoring the results of the elections in favor of telephone polls of far fewer people, some of whom would not have voted at all, is lunacy!
May 31, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a lifetime Democrat, have always voted Democratic. This is my take on the election.
McCain: if he gets elected he'll be a disaster and in 2012 the Democrats will get the Presidency, Senate, Congress.
Obama: if he gets elected he'll be a disaster and in 2012 the Republicans will get the Presidency, Senate, Congress.
Clinton: if she gets elected she'll do a great job and in 2012 she'll be re-elected and the Democrats will maintain the Presidency, Senate, Congress.
So - if the 2008 Presidential race is between McCain and Obama - I'm voting for McCain. Short term pain for long-term gain. (With Obama there would be short term pain anyway.)
Obama chooses to surround himself with haters. 20 years of listening to Wright and Pfleger with his family at his side. And that's the context for Michelle Obama's comment: "For the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country." They can keep apologizing and backtracking but they are a family of hate and resentment - and not one I'll vote for.
Forget the donkey, if you and other superdelegates vote for Obama, the symbol for the Democratic party should be the ostrich.
May 31, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pat if you choose to vote for McCain, your choice in a democracy, then good riddance. No one will shed a tear.
May 31, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If people choose to support the Sudanese government because we decry its persecution of Darfur, good riddance.
If Hillbots choose to support McCain because we decry her actions, good riddance.
May 31, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Pat:
If Hillary loses, I'm taking my ball and going home.
May 31, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I bet that you'll move to Sudan if Obama gets the presidency.
May 31, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This electability argument minimizes the campaign of change that Barack Obama has tried to communicate with some comprehension problems even from some confessed "Obama supporters". Either you are on board with "Change you can believe in" or running your own Obama campaign strategy.
I don't really hear Obama talking in terms of red state/blue state strategy.
May 31, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don: You seem to make sense--except for two states, North Carolina and Illinois. Senator Clinton was defeated by Senator Obama in North Carolina. What makes you think she could carry that state but he couldn't? What's the evidence for that? Nor could she carry Illinois, his home state, given the backlash if superdelegates were to stage a rogue endorsement for her.
May 31, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice summary, with the relevant caveats (it's early, nobody's attacking Hillary, etc.) buried near the bottom. Recommended.
I disagree that Obama has to pick a Clintonite as VP, although depending on the person, such a gesture can help mend fences after the primary race. But it's not necessary. If Hillary takes this to the convention, things may be different, but if things come to a close quickly, I think there's plenty of time for things to heal any rift in the party.
May 31, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I should add that the data currently show both Democrats can easily win, so each is certain;ly "electable". I agree with the above comments that in this environment, it's more important to pick the candidate we think would make a better president, not necessarily the one we think is more likely to win.
Also, I personally disagree with the data: not that it doesn't reflect current polling or analysis of states as of today, but that I believe that in November Obama would be the stronger candidate because of some of the caveats you noted above. But that's my opinion; the current data do indeed say that as of now, Hillary would be a little stronger.
May 31, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post, Don. It's a realistic analysis of the lay of the electoral landscape. What can't be factored in at the moment, however, is the fallout from the rancorous campaign. How great will it be?
You addressed the need to reconcile with the Clinton supporters and your numbers reflect why. Clinton could more easily absorb losing a significant number of Obama supporters than he could in losing an equivalent amount of her suporters. A trip through your 12 "can't win' states (TX, GA, AZ, LA, AL, OK, KS, NE, MS, UT, ID and WY) would seemingly tell us why. I'm too lazy to go back and calculate the differential delegate totals from these states but I suspect that Obama's delegate lead (and then some) would evaporate.
Maybe you'll be able to get through to the Obama supporters more rabid element, which appears to be considerable as you seem to be a much more even-handed sort. Good luck in taking your message to them of how much Obama needs Clinton and her supporters to have a shot.
Again, exellent post. Thanks.
May 31, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment