Clinton, Obama and the Swing-State Argument
A couple of observations about one of the big Clinton talking points after yesterday’s Ohio win: the notion that you can't win in the fall without winning the big swing states that Hillary Clinton is winning in the primaries.
("We need a Democratic candidate who can win battleground states like Ohio!" she said last night.)
One piece of mitigating evidence is that Obama has won his share of swing states this primary season: Virginia, Missouri, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are all expected to be in play this fall, a combined trove of 60 electoral votes (29 of which were lost by Democrats four years ago).
Another is this: History does not suggest that there is a serious correlation between a candidate's performance in a state's presidential primary and how that candidate fares as a general election candidate.
Case in point: George W. Bush in 2000. Recall that Bush was trounced in the New Hampshire primary that year, losing to John McCain by nearly 20 points, a result that turned McCain into a national political celebrity and that nearly ended Bush's campaign. The 30 percent that Bush received in New Hampshire was the lowest he scored in any Republican primary or caucus in 2000. On the same day, New Hampshire voted for Al Gore over Bill Bradley, a verdict that essentially ended the Democratic nominating contest.
And yet: New Hampshire single-handedly made Bush the president in the fall. Bush's narrow win over Gore gave him the state's four electoral votes, without which Florida would have been inconsequential. It marked the first (and still only) time since 1988 that New Hampshire sided with the Republicans in the fall, and New Hampshire was the only state in the Northeast to side with Bush.
Probably worth keeping in mind when considering the relevance of Obama’s loss in Ohio yesterday to the Democrats’ ability, if he’s the nominee, to win there in the fall.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 49.6
- 44.1
- Obama +5.5
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 54.9
- 36.1
- +18.8
- McCain
- 50.7
- 39.6
- +11.1
The logic of this just makes me crazy. How on earth does primary performance have anything to do with how well they would perform in the general? It's a completely different race - different issues, different candidates, and most importantly a completely different, broader electorate. But Hillary just keeps going with these blanket statements that she KNOWS are false. She's my Senator, I volunteered for her in 2000 and 2006, and now I don't know if I can even vote for her again.
To top it off, she can't win the nomination. She SHOULDN'T win the nomination, if we want to elect a democrat in November! But she's been blinded by her own political ambition.
I'm really loving this website: http://www.HillaryStepAside.com
It's respectful, but accurate. She needs to stop this before the convention.
NY Pearl
The website you offer seems to be more of a scam that serves only to be an anti-Hillary site and possible email grabber,(my guess is to deliver spam). I doubt any of the comments or names on it are real since it doesn't allow for opinions that disagree with it.
So this is the time for Dems to stand up now for Hillary Clinton. She has done now what she said she would do, by winning the states she said she would. Dems can not afford to send the glass jaw of Mr Obama to face the Republicans, that would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Hope for
Change comes from faith in the person you put it in, regardless of the bitter comments I'm sure this will recieve, most real Dems (not those pretending to be) know that HRC will fight for the things she talks about in her speeches, rather than the 8 years we've had of Bush. Unite now and send HRC to the White House.
Steve Kornacki is onto something, but doesn't go far enough - Obama has won MOST of the battleground states, and a MAJORITY of the aggregate electoral votes they represent.
Ohio is the FIRST big battleground prize she can claim - if you look at the literature, before March 4 she made no claim to the swing-state mantle.
Finally, to the last poster: those who are not "real Dems" will help determine the result of the general election. When they start to peel off in the millions, how many of Obama's states will stick with Clinton? And on Clinton's side of the ledger, does anyone really believe Clinton will keep her red state rural voters vs. a red state candidate - do they really expect her to win Tennessee or Arizona?
Both of your points are wrong.
Point #1:
Hillary has won more swing states that are worth more electoral votes:
Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Ohio. She's also leading by double digits in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. These states have a combined electoral vote count of: 110.
While neither candidate campaigned in Florida (and I'm ignoring the national ad Obama paid for that ran in Florida), polls and demographics would say that Hillary would win again.
And while his name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, a Fox News Exit Poll showed that he still would have lost by double digits if his name was on the ballot.
But I don't have to tell Obama supporters this - I'm sure you know Obama would probably lose both in a revote considering how hard he's trying to prevent a revote from happening.
Point #2
There is a correlation between how well candidates do in the primary and the chances they have in the general election. No presidential candidate, from either party, has won the presidency without winning Ohio in their primary.
A Survey USA poll has Hillary leading Sen. McCain by 6 points in Ohio while Sen. Obama trails Sen. McCain by 7 points.
In Florida, the latest PPP poll shows Barack Obama losing to John McCain by 11 points while Hillary comes within 4 points of Sen. McCain.
The University of Central Arkansas poll showed Hillary leading Sen. Sen. McCain by 15 points in that state while Sen. Obama trails Sen. McCain by 16 points.
And the latest Rasmussen poll showed Hillary leading Sen. McCain by 11 points in New Jersey while Sen. Obama trails Sen. McCain by 2 points.
Finally, in response to Philip Huang: Obama's strength has been in the Midwest and the South - both regions are dominantly Republican.