Clinton's Big States and Obama's Big States
I swear I am going to blog less about politics once the nominating contest has come to an end, but friend and excellent author Lara Zeises had a thoughtful post in comments I want to pull out:
"What I want to know is, why are Obama supporters so quick to dismiss the "big states" argument. Isn't the overall goal to get a Dem back in the White House? Haven't we learned from the Bush/Gore debacle that electoral votes are EVERYTHING?"
This is a fair question, and I think it's one of the main reasons that Clinton's supporters feel it's important for her to be in the race: The idea is that Obama can't win states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, which means that he'll lose the election in November regardless of the popular vote.
For the sake of argument, let's put aside that I think overturning the pledged delegate count would infuriate the base of the party and just discuss the electoral college facet of the electability argument:
History can't always be your guide for such things, but I looked at the last few competitive Democratic primaries, and there may be some correlation between primary performance and general election performance (For instance, in 1976, Carter lost primaries in California and New York; in the general, he won New York but lost California.) But let's talk about it state by state:
1. Important states that (currently) favor Clinton over Obama in a general election scenario: Arkansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico. (I don't include Michigan; some would say I should, but 40% of Democratic voters voted for no one over Clinton.) I think Obama can win all these states except maybe Arkansas, which I don't think Clinton can win either, but no matter. 52 electoral votes.
2. Important states that (currently) favor Obama over Clinton in a general election scenario: Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. 47 electoral votes.
In short, I think the "big states" argument is kind of a wash, at least from the perspective of the electoral college. If Obama doesn't win Ohio or Pennsylvania, he might be in trouble. If Clinton doesn't win Wisconsin or Colorado, she might be in trouble. (You will note I have given up on Florida. Sorry, Florida.)
Okay. Answers to questions to come soon. Oh, and if you're a dork like me, you can look at some state-by-state head-to-head general election polling at the (annoyingly conservative but nicely laid out) realclearpolitics.
posted by John Green @ Friday, April 25, 2008
9 Comments
9 Comments:
You count Virginia as something? we never get any recognition...
I don't mind politics. I find it all very interesting...
Wow I might be first!
I think what might frustrate me most is when Clinton supporters say they have friends that claim they'd vote for McCain over Obama. First of all, do they not think that's happening from the other side? Most of my friends and family members are Obama supporters, and I've heard them say on more than one occasion that they'd sooner vote for McCain that Clinton. Both of these are ridiculous, of course--akin, in my opinion, to all the people that claimed they'd move to Canada if Bush won in 2004, and then stayed put when he did. Like Hank, McCain only half scares me (as opposed to Bush, whose image I find thoroughly terrifying for all it stands for).
In other dividing news, my step-dad is always coming at me with the argument that Clinton could win because women would vote for her out of loyalty to their sex, and no woman would want to have to say she didn't vote for the first woman president. I don't find this argument very convincing either. I'm a double-X chromosome myself, but if the situation was reversed and Condoleezza Rice was running, my biological makeup would in no way affect my voting decision, and I'd cast a vote for whoever the Dems had selected as an opponent, male or not.
All that being said, I don't actually think the primaries are necessarily the most important thing in the end. The best thing Democrats can do is select a candidate that will also appeal to people sitting on the fence--the currently neglected Moderates. Pretty much any Dem or Republican worth his or her salt will vote for McCain or Obama/Clinton, so the best thing would be to pick whoever is going to appeal to the undecided people in all those big states, the ones unlikely to vote in primaries and caucuses. I'm a very amateur political scientist (I have a few college classes and a general interest, but nothing in depth), but it seems to me that the middle-grounders are the ones who will decide who'll win the big states when it comes down to it. In my unscientific opinion (garnered by listening to my non-Democrat pals and coworkers), Obama has a much better chance of this. Either way, though, I'm kind of excited for the decision to be official, just so the focus can be on beating McCain rather than beating each other.
(And I'm pretty sure this comment was as long as the post. Sorry!)
Hey, keep the politics coming! I may not live there anymore but I think this is one election that matters to ALL of us!
It's fascinating to read how others interpret and react to this whole thing.
I think they should run together no matter who wins. That may be their best chance against McCain.
Wow- i really like hearing your views on politics, its interesting, entertaining and informative. Thanks!
You have a very valid point here! Obama and Clinton are both very liberal democrats and we can agree that McCain is the most moderate of the three. I feel Obama would be the better choice because he is the one who can motivate people. I agree with his views also, but he connects with people in a way that Clinton cannot...it's crucial in an election.
all the politics are giving me a headache.
but i gotta say the whole females will vote for clinton thing is such crap. if i could vote (not old even yet :sigh:) id go for obama. but there are females i do know, and are related to, that like clinton because of her sex. i think i was switched at birth, i have so little in common with my mother.
Ok, I'm really bad at understanding politics but I try, so, sorry, but why have you given up on Florida?
Amy wrote, "The best thing would be to pick whoever is going to appeal to the undecided people in all those big states, the ones unlikely to vote in primaries and caucuses." I find this interesting, since in all of the major primary races, late deciders have overwhelmingly broke for Clinton over Obama. And Clinton carries the demographic for the most reliable election voters.
Now, I'm a woman, and I support Clinton, but not because she's got boobs. In fact, when the race started I was largely undecided and maybe even a bit more in favor of Obama. He's inspirational, he's a powerful speaker, and he's someone who I think could instill a national pride we haven't seen since the days of Camelot.
But - and here's something that I've only heard Stephanopoulos talk about during that last disastro-bate - Obama went negative in his e-mail campaign very early on. Prior to Super Tuesday, every e-mail I received from his camp took (often cheap) shots at Hillary. They lumped her with Bill (as if it was inconceivable that she could run her own campaign, and that a vote for her was a vote for them), which I also found offensive. And I was getting mailings from the Obama campaign with pictures of Hillary on them, all targeted toward how she was the wrong candidate because of X, Y, Z. Meanwhile, none of the stuff I got from Clinton's campaign even mentioned Obama at that point, and all of it was focused on her strengths instead of his weaknesses.
Had Obama not run his campaign like that so early on, he may have actually had my vote. There are some differences in their platforms - like Obama wants to start sex ed programs as early on as kindergarten - where I break for him over her. But I can't seem to lose this bad taste in my mouth over how he's run this race. And it kills me that the press slams her for going negative, when he was ninja negative all along.
Last thoughts: "Bitter"-gate did a number on a lot of working class Dem voters, and I don't know that Obama has time to recover from that. People are still cheesed at the comments, though they're reacting more to how the media's characterized them than what was actually said. If he loses that base, though, he's cooked when it comes to the general election.
Not sure which way these chips will fall, but it's sure been a fun ride. :)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home