General Election Math May Be in Clinton’s Favor
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in 2008 Election, DemocratsIn an interesting analysis at RealClearPolitics, Marie Cocco points out that while Hillary Clinton may have a math problem heading towards the nomination, Barack Obama may have a general election math problem. It all comes down to who is winning where and how those wins are happening.
Add up all the states [Obama] has won in his historic drive to become the nominee, including all of those small and deeply “red” Republican states where the Obama supporters boast of their candidate’s transcendental appeal, and so far Obama has won in places representing 193 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Add up Clinton’s victories thus far and she has triumphed in states representing 263 electoral votes.
Of course, some states in Clinton’s column — Texas comes most readily to mind — that have a large trove of Electoral College votes are highly unlikely to wind up Democratic in the fall. But the same holds true for Obama, whose strength in southern Democratic primaries has rested on the huge margins he has run up among African-American voters. African-Americans are a crucial constituency for Democrats, but their votes in recent contests haven’t been enough to win such states as Alabama, South Carolina or Georgia.
The piece goes on to point out Obama’s weakness in Ohio where he only won five of the state’s 88 counties. While Obama may play well among self-described independents, he’s not playing well among the type of swing voter who will likely determine the general election: blue collar and rural voters. The fact that Obama can win big urban areas is almost irrelevant. Any Democrat will win those. To win the key swing states, the nominee will need to make inroads into the ole’ Reagan Democrats who haven’t been reliably Democrat since 1979.
Look at the fancy county-by-county maps CNN provides and you’ll see a trend in every primary state: Clinton wins outside the cities. This is important. Obama may have won more red states but Clinton is winning the red counties in the swing states. Those red states aren’t going to go blue. But a few red counties in Ohio or Florida or Colorado might go bluer and tip the election to the Democrats. The candidate that looks best positioned to do that is not Obama but Clinton.
Until reading this piece and then doing my own research and analysis, I just assumed Obama’s strength among independents would make him the more formidable opponent against John McCain. Now, I’m not so sure. Interesting.
This entry was posted on Thursday, March 6th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Democrats. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 6th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/
This post is untrue. Obama is better against McCain, 280-258.
He takes states Hillary can’t: Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington, Iowa, North Dakota, and Oregon.
March 6th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
This is pure propaganda - can’t tell if it’s for McCain, Clinton (or, perversely Obama hisself). Texas is still counting their votes and Obama is claiming victory. Hitlery makes a mockery of the democratic process.
Hey - they all seem like a bunch of New World Order, death-cult scum, but only to the least observant billary ‘fan’ is Obama not taking names and kicking ass.
All of this bunch of ‘change’ preaching elitist puppets are enough to make an impartial fan of democracy sick to his stomach.
March 6th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
The Many Contradictions of Hillary Rodham Clinton…
1. I Served on the Board of union hating Wal-Mart.
– But I am Pro Union.
2. I voted for the war in Iraq.
– But I am against The Iraq War.
3. I Voted for Kyle-Lieberman to extend the war to Iran.
– But I will bring soldiers back home …
March 6th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
It’s just food for thought. Not propaganda (although I love it that you’re convinced it’s propaganda but don’t know for whom — classic). I consider this very much open for discussion.
The real question is, who’s winning more votes that the other candidate won’t win in the general election? Certainly the urban liberals will vote for either. So, is Obama winning more urban independents who might otherwise choose McCain or is Hillary winning more blue collar and rural voters who might otherwise vote Republican? It’s a fair question.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
LOL.
Dan F., seriously, either add something constructive to the conversation or take your rants elsewhere.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
The interesting question is how well McCain’s “maverick” image would withstand a national general election where his real self would be highlighted, a man who for the majority of his career has received an 80% or above rating from the ACU. Can he succeed in putting his pandering to the far right behind him for the general election or is it public enough for the Democrats to use against him? I think that any polls at this point dealing with McCain just can’t address these issues.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
I saw this too.
The problem I have with it is that it’s suspect to think that candidate A’s success against candidate B in any given state speaks to either’s strength against candidate C. It just doesn’t necessarily follow.
For example, a few years ago the Tampa Bay Devil Rays OWNED the Yankees, who still finished with the best record in the American League. But the devil raus still finished in last place. Go figure.
Hillary has strength in big democratic machine states. If Obama wins the democratic nom, he inherits that machine.
The african american aspect is interesting to me. It’s true that the AA vote for democrats hasn’t been enough to bring them wins in places like Georgia or Alabama. But that’s at the turnout rate for guys like Kerry and Gore. How much higher do we expect turnout to be for Obama?
Not making any predictions there, but it’s worth wondering about. It would be awfully nice to see Obama test some of these southern states. If he won one or two of them, it might help those states lift the mantle of accusations of ingrained racism.
Because we know that if the issue is brought up, some northeast latte liberal is going to say that whatever extra turnout Obama could bring will be more than countered by the extra racist votes of those backward southern so and so’s.