The Big States

I wanted to see what, if any, reaction Hillary Clinton's campaign had up on their website to her loss in Maine, but it seems they're ignoring it. Also Louisiana. And Washington. And Nebraska. And of course the US Virgin Islands. Instead, the latest results-related thing I saw was a post-Super Tuesday memo from Mark Penn that featured the illogic we've come to expect from the man since long before he started working for HRC's presidential bid:

As super-delegates consider which candidate to support, they will be looking at which one candidate has a base and can win the big states, including the crucial swing constituencies. We believe the impressive wins in NY, CA, MA, MI, FL, NJ, AZ suggest that Hillary is the one who can motivate a strong turnout in November.

But of course Democrats couldn't possibly lose NY, CA, MA, or NJ there was no campaign in FL or MI and it'll be a cold day in hell before John McCain loses an election in Arizona. I think the reverse inference that Obama won swing states like Colorado, Iowa, and Missouri and will therefore carry those states in the general election doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but at least I understand what the argument is supposed to be. What about Clinton winning Massachusetts is supposed to convince me that Clinton can motivate a strong turnout?

Comments

At this point I don't really see how Obama can lose (barring a catastrophic mistake, of course).

He seems likely to clean up this Tuesday and later in the month in WI, thus building up a pretty substantial delegate lead and getting anointed as front-runner. I know TX and OH are supposed to be strongly pro-Clinton, but she's going to really have to clean up to overcome these 65-70% wins Obama's putting on the board in all the smaller states.

And there's the "get on with it" vote--although I voted for Clinton in NY, I'd definitely go Obama in OH or TX just to get the damn thing over and done with.

Posted by gustav | February 11, 2008 9:24 AM

Matthew writes "it'll be a cold day in hell before John McCain loses an election in Arizona."

Yes siree. McCain is really popular in Arizona which is why he received such an overwhelming majority in the recent Arizona primary.

"I think the reverse inference that Obama won swing states like Colorado, Iowa, and Missouri and will therefore carry those states in the general election doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but at least I understand what the argument is supposed to be."

The argument is the same for Obama as for McCain in Arizona. Just as McCain won the majority in the Arizona primary, so also did Obama win a similar number in Colorado, Iowa, and Missouri which means they are both popular in those respective states and can win them.

Posted by TLM | February 11, 2008 9:30 AM

What, are you telling me now that Barack Obama, were he to become the nominee, might have a chance in Mass. but probably won't win in Idaho? That's crazy talk.
(Thank you, I'm hoarse from yelling back at the talking heads on TV that there are small yet significant differences between primaries and general elections. Are you listening, Chris Matthews?)

Posted by Plawless | February 11, 2008 9:30 AM

It really looks like Obama is going to beat Hillary through a thousand paper cuts, the same way that McCain won and drove Rudy out. You can't give up, focus on a firewall a month away and expect the momentum to not overtake you in the firewall states. Doesn't she think people in those states read papers. If they read "Obama wins X" every week there's a primary, Obama's strength will sink in.

FL:Rudy::TX&OH:Hillary

Posted by Mo | February 11, 2008 9:33 AM

I think it is very very discouraging that top HRC officials are in the habit of regarding Michigan and Florida as legitimate elections that you can use to bolster a case about something. It's discouraging if you are a Democrat, because that argument has the potential to tear the Democratic Party apart, and it's discouraging if you're an HRC supporter, because, weak argument.

Posted by Martin | February 11, 2008 9:38 AM

Everyone keeps saying that it's going to be a long campaign. (I think that's a good thing.) Either you're seeing a lot more pro-Clinton, anti-Obama rhetoric among the movers and shakers that is broadly understood to exist--entirely possible, and if so, it would be great to know--or you're hyperventilating about spin from HRC's campaign for no apparent reason.

I love me some Obama, and don't much like the HRC machine--which bums me out, because I think she's still the favorite by more than a bit--but I recognize that HRC is trying to win, and that odd justifications and lies are part of that process for any candidate.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 11, 2008 9:39 AM

Yes, as every superdelegate knows, the way you win a national election is by running up the score in CA and NY.

Posted by lampwick | February 11, 2008 9:47 AM

What about Clinton winning Massachusetts is supposed to convince me that Clinton can motivate a strong turnout?

But, but, but...

Obama is shallow, an empty suit, who's really a right-wing, movement conservative islamofascist who studied at a madrassa - a MADRASSA!! - when he was a kid, and even though he says he's been against the war from the beginning, he hasn't been, and he only won South Carolina because he's black, and he's inexperienced and, when he had a chance to get experience, he voted present!!! A lot!!!

So yeah, support Hillary. The only clear choice.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 11, 2008 9:50 AM

Hilarious that Penn lists Michigan -- where HRC was the sole active candidate on the ballot -- as an "impressive" victory.

About as impressive as Stalin or Castro winning their "elections." And no, I'm not comparing HRC to those two -- just pointing out that Michigan proves about as much as an election in a one-party state.

Except, come to think of it, I don't think Stalin or Castro ever had "uncommitted" win thirty-something percent against them.

Posted by Gee | February 11, 2008 9:55 AM

Excellent post, MY. Really sucks that MI and FL played out as they did, 'cause the main question is which one could win* OH and/or FL in the general.

*Win = overcome cheating.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | February 11, 2008 9:56 AM

I have now overcome my shock at Texas and its March 4th primary actually being important... enough to ask whether we've had any sort of respectable poll by a nationwide poll done here recently? Links welcome!

Posted by norbizness | February 11, 2008 9:58 AM

No I think Mark Penn is precisely correct:

"Hillary is the one who can motivate a strong turnout in November."

Indeed. The Republican turnout will set a record that will stand for decades to come.

Posted by Nick | February 11, 2008 9:58 AM

The really ominous thing coming out of those landslide defeats in the heartland and caucus states is the revelation of Clinton's organizational weakness. This is a candidate and a campaign that spent as many as seven and as few as three years plotting to take the white house and the grand scheme seems to be... get lots of big donors in line and use the Democratic machines in swing states to eke out a win. You know, the strategy that elected President Gore and President Kerry.

They not only fail to understand how Obama is organizing and driving up turnouts: They hold that strategy in contempt. They are waiting on states with more favorable demographics to reject Obama and do their work for him. These are deeply stupid and venal people who will lose an election to John McCain.

Posted by Dave W | February 11, 2008 10:13 AM

You say that the "...inference that Obama won swing states like Colorado, Iowa, and Missouri and will therefore carry those states in the general election doesn't stand up to scrutiny..." Why? At least in Colorado, where you had to be registered with one party or the other by December 5 to participate, Obama got more votes in the official preference polls than all the Republicans put together, and nearly six times as many as McCain. CO may be a small state, but 9 electoral votes are 9 electoral votes!

Posted by Lukeness | February 11, 2008 10:23 AM

Good point, Dave W. The only time Hillary Clinton seems to have beaten Obama "fair and square" was in New Hampshrie. Other than that, her campaign seems to depend on her 100% name recognition and status as the "default" candidate. The fact that the Democratic party rules favor small states and have a lot of caucuses should have indicated to the Clinton campaign that they needed to learn how to win those races. The fact that the campaign can't win those points to a level of ineptness at campaigning that doesn't bode well for november.

Clinton is the frontrunner. Her campaign knew what the nomination rules were. How come she couldn't create a strategy to decisively win within those rules? Obama, as the "challenger" has a natural disadvantage going in, so it should have been straightforward for Clinton to outmaneuver him in all of the caucuses, but she couldn't do it.

Posted by Tyro | February 11, 2008 10:28 AM

It's not just Democratic Party rules that favors small states, the electoral college favors small states on a per capita basis. Compare the number of electoral votes per person in Iowa vs. CA for example.

Posted by Mo | February 11, 2008 10:41 AM

General election ain't a caucus.

Posted by Columbia | February 11, 2008 10:52 AM

"CO may be a small state, but 9 electoral votes are 9 electoral votes!"

Hey! That's not fair. Colorado ranks 24th in population. That's not a small state -- it's a *mid-sized* state!

Posted by Joe | February 11, 2008 10:53 AM

Primaries and caucuses across the board are having two and three times as much turnout. Are we really supposed to believe that all of those new primary voters were brought in by Hillary Clinton? That this deluge of voters would have showed up at the polls, if it had been a contest between Clinton and Edwards? Obama's bringing new voters out of the woodworks.

Posted by Tel | February 11, 2008 10:55 AM

Arguably, the Dems can win Colorado and Virginia this year, and those two together total 22 electoral votes (which is 2 more than Ohio).

The more I look at the states Bush won in 2000 and 2004, the clear it becomes that the Democrats HAVE TO try to chip away purple states, or it becomes the same suicidal Fl/Ohio dynamic of 2000 and 2004.

And I think that Obama has a good chance of winning Iowa, NM, Colorado, Va and Mo (or at least putting them in serious play). That's 45 electoral votes, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Posted by JRVJ | February 11, 2008 11:15 AM

We could lose California--probably not, but possibly. McCain could make a case with Latinos. It might sell. If so, CA is in play.

Posted by John Petty | February 11, 2008 11:25 AM

It really looks like Obama is going to beat Hillary through a thousand paper cuts

The Rudy analogy isn't quite accurate, but I think it'll be part of the media conversation about an expected Clinton dry season between now and early March. Obama can win scrappily. Hillary can't.

The real question for electoral-vote crunchers is turnout model. All sorts of states theoretically come into play if you factor in just a sliver of the non-voting 45%: That rarely turns out to be the case, but 'rare' doesn't mean 'never'.

As for Mark Penn putting MI and FL in the win column, someone needs to tell him to shut the fuck up to his face.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 11, 2008 11:28 AM

The only time Hillary Clinton seems to have beaten Obama "fair and square" was in New Hampshrie.

I hate to say it, Tyro, but Hillary won NH largely on the basis of two lies: 1) the last-minute anti-Obama mailers claiming he is weak on reproductive rights (which some of the signatories have since repudiated); and 2) Hillary's promise that she would preserve NH's place in the primary process by supporting the party's policy on not seating FL and MI delegates.

Posted by Tractarian | February 11, 2008 11:31 AM

We could lose California--probably not, but possibly. McCain could make a case with Latinos. It might sell. If so, CA is in play.

Petey, thanks for adding humor to the comments section.

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 11, 2008 11:56 AM

Clinton's success so far is almost entirely attributable to her success in early voting and the great job her campaign's done to dominate the Latino vote outside of Illinois (which is why it's even more puzzling that Solis-Doyle's the one that got the axe).

If you watched the returns from any primary state so far aside from NY, you see Clinton start with an early lead, and then Edwards' fraction plummets and Obama begins to pull even or win. Hillary's team doesn't prefer primaries to caucuses because they're more "fair" - they're preferred because early voting favors the incumbent - especially when Obama has to focus on every state and was only able to campaign for Super Tuesday for about a week.

If Clinton and Obama had split the Latino vote evenly on 2/5, the nomination would've been decided right then and there (AZ would be close, CA would be close or for Obama, NM would be emphatically for Obama). This is quite literally the only success story for the campaign. A mutiny against her top Latina adviser hardly seems, um advisable.

Posted by Zach | February 11, 2008 12:12 PM

I'm curious as to why Oklahoma, Tennessee and Arkansas never count in the rundown of "who wins red states". All are currently red, but could go purple and HRC won them handily. Take out arkansas (where she has an advantage because she lived there so long - an advantage she would still have against McCain) and you still have two good sized states with a huge turnout that went to her in a walk - in a primary. Why do these get ignored?

And I agree with Petey that McCain puts the hispanic vote in play much more with Obama than with Clinton.

Posted by Columbia | February 11, 2008 1:14 PM

It's discouraging if you are a Democrat, because that argument has the potential to tear the Democratic Party apart, and it's discouraging if you're an HRC supporter, because, weak argument.

It's not a weak argument. Florida saw about the same number of voters participate in its Democratic primary as New York -- a slightly larger, significantly more Democratic state. Which strongly implies the vigorous surrogate campaigning (and Obama's television advertising) did have an effect, because, proportionally, voter turnout in the Florida Democratic primary was heavier than in New York.

The pattern is clear. In large primaries where the electorate mirrors that of the nation as a whole, Hillary wins going away. Obama's continues mostly to be a boutique, niche campaign, heavily dependent on flooding caucuses with liberal activists and college students. When there's a more even playing field for moderate income voters -- his campaign is far less impressive. For all the talk about electability, his candidacy looks very much like a Gary Hart or Bill Bradley insurgency, with a heavy emphasis on traditional, left-wing Democratic voter cohorts. Clinton's campaign has actually demonstrated far greater strength with the purple state swing voters who will decide this election. In Missouri, for instance, Obama's victory was put together in blue counties the Democrats typically win even in bad years (ie., metro Saint Louis and KC), whereas Hillary's 49% of the vote came heavily in the redder rural and exurban counties in which the Democrats must show strength if they're to take such purple states in November. Louisiana was similar. And Obama, of course, lost heavily in two other purple state primaries, Tennessee and Arkansas. (actually, make that "three" other if you include Florida).

Those who say Illinois and Massachusetts don't tell us much about the general election are right. Deep blue states will remain so. But caucuses don't tell us much about the national election, either. Because when you reduce voter participation to, say, 20% of what it would be in a primary (I'm thinking of Washington State vs. Massachusetts, for example), you naturally get a subset of the voting population that is better educated, more affluent, and, yes, more likely to be heavy with Obama supporters. There's nothing "unfair" about Obama's wins here. Rules are rules. But you've really gotta be drinking the Obama-aid to infer anything about his strength strength in the Electoral College from such contests.

When you analyze the returns from purple state primaries, it is abundantly clear that Hillary Clinton represents our best chance at taking back the White House from the Republicans. Obama's is an under the radar left-liberal insurgency candidacy. He may have been temporarily able to deflect media scrutiny of his ideology by eschewing discussion of issues. But that situation will not hold indefinitely. It also may be the case that 2008 will be such a good year for Democrats, we can get a guy like Obama elected -- and that's an exciting prospect. But Hillary is really the safer bet to prevail in November.

I urge Clinton supporters to stand firm, to fight tenaciously for her candidacy, and to go on to help her take Texas and (purple state) Ohio. I also urge the Clinton campaign to strongly resist any proposals to caucus Florida and Michigan. We need to get the most electable candidate nominated this summer.

And for you Obama supporters, think about three little words: The. Electoral. College.

Posted by Jasper | February 11, 2008 1:41 PM

If Clinton and Obama had split the Latino vote evenly on 2/5, the nomination would've been decided right then and there (AZ would be close, CA would be close or for Obama, NM would be emphatically for Obama).

Of course if Clinton and Obama had split black votes more evently, the nomination would be over. And if they'd split women's votes more evenly. Or white males. It's weird that you would look at one demographic and say that that one is the only reason HRC has had some success. Kind of like when Republicans try to say that Democrats "only" win because of women. like women voters are some strange subset of "normal" (ie male) voters.

The fact is that hispanic voters did NOT split evenly. And that should concern Democrats against McCain who has been courting this group for a long time. It's not just Arizona or California either. New Mexico has been a swing state and if McCain appeals to hispanics there, that's a problem for us. See also: Florida.

Also agree with Jasper. HRC is doing extremely well in the primaries of several swing states and in the most conservative areas of those states. But doesn't get much attention. Why is that?

Posted by Columbia | February 11, 2008 1:54 PM

Why is that? I live in Oklahoma, and I assure you, it is not a swing state. The HRC supporters here are the old-timey Democratic machine voters who tell everyone that the draft has been reinstated by Bush to increase turnout before elections.

If McCain panders to the Latinos, he'll lose even more base Republican support thanks to the Z-visa stigma. It's a trade off that Obama stands to gain from.

Posted by Anonymous | February 11, 2008 2:19 PM

It irks me to say "I agree with Jasper" all the time, but I suppose if I don't regularly monitor this silly blog I'll have to resign myself to being second--or third, in this case (nod to Columbia).

What about Clinton winning Massachusetts is supposed to convince me that Clinton can motivate a strong turnout?

The fact that it had a strong turnout and pretty much every elected official in the state pulling for Obama and yet still went for Clinton?

But not a problem, since 25K people in Nebraska in a caucus liked Obama, and that must mean something.

Posted by Cal | February 11, 2008 2:41 PM

HRC almost got more votes in Oklahoma than all Republicans combined. So if the Democratic base is just crazy conspiracy theorists, they're doing a heck of a job.

And OK has a Democratic governor.

Not saying Clinton would definitely win there, but she certainly has as much, if not more, of a chance as Obama has in Nebraska or Alabama. But he gets credit for "red state" wins and she doesn't.

Posted by Columbia | February 11, 2008 2:43 PM

Correction - HRC got almost got more votes than McCain and Huckebee combined. Still an impressive showing in such a conservative state.

Posted by Columbia | February 11, 2008 2:45 PM

And OK has a Democratic governor.

BFD.
So does CA. NY and MA had Republican governors during both Bush elections and he came nowhere near getting either of those states.

OK went to Bush 66-34. It's about as in play as Utah is.

Posted by Mo | February 11, 2008 3:30 PM

Oops, I meant CA has a Republican governor, not a Democratic one.

Posted by Mo | February 11, 2008 3:33 PM

You might be right. OK may not be in play. I doubt ID, NE, UT, AL, or Alaska are in play either. Yet BHO gets credit for those wins. There's clearly a double standard here.

Posted by Columbia | February 11, 2008 4:47 PM

*The electorate in the nomination contests and the general election are substantially different, which makes most comparative analysis invalid or unreliable -- especially if you are lazy and only break down the vote one way. For example,

"In Missouri, for instance, Obama's victory was put together in blue counties the Democrats typically win even in bad years (ie., metro Saint Louis and KC), whereas Hillary's 49% of the vote came heavily in the redder rural and exurban counties in which the Democrats must show strength if they're to take such purple states in November."

Obama has done well with rural white Democrats and Independents in some states but not all of them. Clinton has done well with rural white Democrats in some states but not all of them. But who really believes that Democrats are going to stay home in November?

*Clinton voters will vote for Obama over a Republican (even McCain), and Obama Democrats will vote for Clinton over a Republican (unless Clinton cheats or ends up with the nomination even if Obama has a decent lead among pledged delegates).

*Obama does much better with independents. Independents used to lean Republican; now, most don't. One of the Democratic candidates has broad appeal with independents, the other doesn't.

*Caucuses aren't representative -- but neither are primaries. Caucuses are arguably less democratic, but not as undemocratic as superdelegates or the Electoral College. Hillary's pathetic lack of preparation in some states reflects poor campaign management, nothing more.

*Energy matters -- but we can't say by how much. Consider OH in 2004, where the volunteer GOP GOTV effort was far superior to the paid GOTV effort the Dems used. Will Obama's energy in the Dem contest now translate into Red State wins? Probably not, but the GOP will have to play defense against the possibility of turnout upending all the working models. And Obama's energetic base will translate into way more than future votes.

Posted by ScottS | February 11, 2008 5:13 PM

Mark Penn is still getting paid for his analytical skills? And Jasper, I appreciate your argument but I think it's off. Some of the biggest purple states --- OH, PA, WI --- have reservoirs of black voters that have barely been tapped. In '04, African-Americans in Cleveland and Columbus lined up for blocks to vote for John Kerry. John Kerry. Imagine how many more Barack Obama would bring out. My state, Pennsylvania, has turned blue in the last two general elections only because of thumping turnout in and around Philly. There are more Democrats in West Philly than in the whole middle of the state, but Hillary's not going to get them. Obama is. Same goes for the Center City yuppies and the suburban independents. Now, Hillary might expect a swarm of old ladies from coal country to put the state in the Democratic column in November, but she'd be wrong. Now, can I have Mark Penn's job? I could really use the $4 million.

Posted by phillygirl | February 11, 2008 8:06 PM

The main reason for HRC's failure is the poll driven packaged Hillary controlled by a Mark Penn- a big lobbyist. Mark Penn is the worst thing that ever happened to HRC. The way the momentum is going I don't think she will even win the Big states like TX or OH.
The whole blame goes to the Clinton Machine seethed in the old ways and which just did not understand the new dynamics and enthusiasm for change.

Posted by SoulSeek | February 12, 2008 3:10 PM