The Obama campaign sent out an interesting memo earlier today about the Clinton campaign's argument that Clinton has done better in the large swing states Democrats need to carry in November. I think that argument from Clinton is 90 percent hot air (why should we infer general election strength from primary strength) and consequently the counter-argument includes a lot of hot air, too. One bit of solid fact the Obama campaign brings to the table, however, is that Obama states Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota were all extremely close in 2004 (i.e., margins of less than three percent). Optimism-minded Democrats would like to think of "swing states" as being the states that John Kerry narrowly lost, but it's important to hold on to the states he narrowly won as well.
« Civilian Control | Main | Silly Season »
State-by-State
12 Mar 2008 02:44 pm
Comments (31)
This whole argument should be a slam dunk for Obama:
1) Kerry won 20 states in 2004 (including D.C.). Of these 20 states, 17 have already had 2008 contests (not including Michigan). Obama has won 11 of the 17 contests. Clinton won only CA, NY, NJ, RI, MA and NH. Obama would not be expected to lose any of those states in a general election, with the possible exception of NH.
2) Of the 5 states that went most closely for Bush in 2004 (i.e., the states most likely to swing to the Democrats), Obama has won 4: IA, CO, MO, VA. Clinton has won only one: OH.
3) The 3 states won by Kerry most narrowly in 2004 (i.e., the states most likely to flip to rhe Republicans) were all won by Obama: WI, MN, WA.
Actually, HRC would have won at least two of those three close states if Obama wasn't in the race and if HRC manages to steal is righteously selected to represent Democrats in the GE, presumably Obama won't be around to siphon off her votes. Presumably.
You can't generalize from caucuses.
He lost white Democrats in Wisconsin, which isn't a good sign.
Jeez, Cal, give a guy a chance to parody you before you post the exact same thing the parody would have said!
I am officially beginning to suspect that "Cal" is "idiotic", with a minor variation:
"This is a BAD SIGN ... for OBAMA!!!"
Anyway, a lot of people have been making the point that "swing states" should include the close Kerry states for a long time. That said, welcome to the party, Matt, and glad you could make it.
Brian,
I agree with you and Matt overall, but you can't run that analysis and just leave out Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Sure they were a little further from toss-up status than IA, CO, WI, etc, but they have an enormous number of electoral votes.
I still think this argument (to the extent it has any merit) cuts in Obama's favor, but it's not as cut and dry as you suggest.
He lost the white vote in Wisconsin by 1 point, I believe. Cal, did your girlfriend leave you for a black dude? You bring up race a lot. Not too surprising, but its obvious you are an old cunt.
Incidentally, it just occurred to me that when Cal claims Clinton is the stronger candidate in a state she lost, and in which Obama won white voters overall, all because she won white Democrats, he is more or less counting on Clinton being stronger in the general election thanks to ...
Black Republicans.
I like it. Who can argue with the logic that all Mondale needed was just a little bit of that Alan Keyes magic?
right,
OK, but Brian would need to know who won those states in order to include them. And none of them has yet held a real contest.
I'm leaving out those states because they haven't voted yet. (Well, I'm leaving out Florida because I don't think it's really in play.) I'm not crediting Obama with a win in Oregon (a Kerry state) for the same reason.
Michigan might very well go for Obama. Pennsylvania probably won't. If both states and Florida go for Clinton, she has a better argument. But my point was not to speculate about states that haven't had (legitimate) votes yet. It was to take the argument on Clinton's terms and apply it to the results already in. It is also an attempt to refute the cherry-picking of Clinton surrogates who dismiss Obama as winning in reliably Republican states like Idaho, Utah and Wyoming, but who ignore his wins in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington and Iowa. I mean, watching CNN last night, I was yelling at my television as pundit after pundit swallowed this line of argument: "Look at the map!" After Montana, South Dakota and Oregon vote, the entire country west of the Mississippi and above the Mason-Dixon line will have gone for Obama, including the northwest and upper midwest states Democrats must win to win the general.
For what it's worth, I am an independent, not a Democrat. I support Obama, but I came to that decision only a month or so ago. Clinton's tactics have only reinforced my choice since then.
Here's what I think you can infer. Anyone who voted for Hillary against Obama will again vote for Hillary against McCain. But Obama is going to lose a significant percentage of his cross-over primary voters to McCain in the general. That's why the core Dem numbers matter.
I keep saying that if you replay 2004 again, and change Ohio from R to D, Kerry wins. Do you think that Clinton or Obama could do that? I think both could. McCain has gone out of his way to make himself Bush light, if you pardon the pun. Why do you think that someone campaigning with a president whose approval ratings is in the 30s has any chance?
Incidentally, it just occurred to me that when Cal claims Clinton is the stronger candidate in a state she lost,
Where did I claim Clinton was the stronger candidate in Wisconsin?
But my point was not to speculate about states that haven't had (legitimate) votes yet. It was to take the argument on Clinton's terms and apply it to the results already in.
But Clinton's argument really only exists to raise the importance of Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as Florida and Michigan (either the original results or a revote). That's what the media is buying.
So while I agree with you that Obama has done very well in many of the smaller states that are in play in the general election, Clinton has held onto a lead (whether in polls, primaries, or pseudo-fake primaries) in the big ones.
All that said, I agree with Matt it's crazy to think primary election results tell you anything about strength in a general election.
"But Obama is going to lose a significant percentage of his cross-over primary voters to McCain in the general. That's why the core Dem numbers matter."
You have proof of that? Obama does much better in the caucuses which generally attract the core party members. At least that was the CW until Hillary decided it wasn't because it didn't fit her narrative.
"Do you think that Clinton or Obama could do that? I think both could."
I think Clinton loses Wisconsin and Minnesota (because upper Midwesterners don't like her), Michigan (because Democrats need the African-American turnout to win, and she won't get it under any plausible scenario where she's the nominee over Obama), and Washington and Oregon (because those states generally like McCain). I think that Obama wins all of those states easily. I believe that the polls back me up on these predictions at this point.
On the converse side, I think Obama might well lose Pennsylvania, and I think she picks up Ohio but he doesn't. But this is counterbalanced by the fact that he will win Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and probably at least one of Missouri, North Carolina or Virginia.
Undecided, you need to refresh yourself on the difference between 'infer' and 'speculate.'
Oh, and Iowa too.
So, to do the math, let's assume that Obama wins all of the Kerry states except Pennsylvania, and then adds Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and the mathematical average of the three states.
That puts him at 269 EVs--he wins by one, even losing Pennsylvania, and even before you take into account his chances in several other close states.
By the way, if Hillary adds Ohio but loses Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington and Oregon, she gets a grand total of 234 EVs. Nice.
My inference is that Clinton will be a stronger general election candidate because she relied much less on cross-over voters (and caucus machinations) in the primaries. Happy now? ;)
I always like the argument where Hillary holds onto her votes from the primary and Obama loses some of his, and that is all that is said. This, of course, gets her to about 20% in the general election, charitably assuming people like the people who voted for her in the primary also vote for her in the general. But if you apply the same assumption to Obama, he comes out way ahead--although he still gets crushed.
The upshot? Neither can win without most of each other's supporters. Talking about them only retaining their current supporters works for neither.
It's not enough that Obama has to run against both Clintons, he also has to run against the Rush Limbaugh Republicans whom Rush instructed to vote for Hillary. Hence Hillary's fake win in Texas, for example. With polls showing Obama can more easily easily beat McCain than Hillary can (beat McCain), and with the Republican race locked up, Republicans are voting for Hillary in droves since they'd rather face her in November. Apparently a sizeable hunk of her Mississippi vote took place in Republican areas. Now Republicans are requesting Dem primary ballots in PA (they have till March 24). These late primaries are thus meaningless, but they continue because it means much more money for the media (which of course ignores this fake Repub vote factor.)
The Clinton campaign has no argument about how they can win the nomination.
If Hillary gets the nomination, it will wreck the Democratic party for years and demoralize a large percentage of Democrats.
If Hillary gets the nomination, the rabid rightwing of the "fevered swamp" gets fired up and energized and galvanized.
McCain's fundraising would go up, Republican voter turnout would go up.
Hey, look! It's Cal harping on the same old race-mongering drivel again. I didn't at all expect to see that here.
I hope you younger people have a good feel for how horribly deeply racism was imprinted onto the minds of older voters. I hope white Democrats can circle Obama's name. They'll say they can, maybe think they can, but I fear many will fail in the booth.
A Hillary loss to McCain would be trouble for America; an Obama loss could be disaster.
Well, Undecided, here's one thing you said:
Anyone who voted for Hillary against Obama will again vote for Hillary against McCain.
I don't think this stands up either speculatively or inferentially. What about, for example, people who voted for Clinton against Obama because they like the fact that Clinton has been more hawkish on Iraq? What about people who were actually convinced by the 3 AM phone call ad? Won't some of them take their thinking a step further and realize that McCain scores better on that metric than Clinton does? Isn't it likely that there could be a significant number of such voters?
Also, a fair number of voters are pretty much zero-information and vote for reasons that people who hang around political blog comment sections can't pretend to divine.
ferd:
"I hope you younger people have a good feel for how horribly deeply racism was imprinted onto the minds of older voters."
This was the conventional wisdom before Iowa. Then the media started discussing it again seriously after the virtual tie in New Hampshire.
If Florida and Michigan are done over, they should do New Hampshire over again. The Clinton campaign basically gave New Hampshire the middle finger. (I like how they're going to waste all of this money on do-overs, money which could have been used against McCain).
Also, a fair number of voters are pretty much zero-information and vote for reasons that people who hang around political blog comment sections can't pretend to divine
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/yee_haw_my_vote_cancels_out
I think the Obama logic is on target. The key is to hold on to states Kerry won narrowly and take states Bush won narrowly.
Looking at the close states from 2004 (I'll say that's single digits in percentage difference, all numbers from electoral-vote.com) we get the following 20 states:
Wisconsin, Kerry by 0.6%, 10 EV's
Iowa, Bush by 0.9%, 7 EV's
New Mexico, Bush by 1.1%, 5 EV's
New Hampshire, Kerry by 1.3%, 4 EV's
Pennsylvania, Kerry by 2.2%, 21 EV's
Ohio, Bush by 2.5%, 20 EV's
Michigan, Kerry by 3.4%, 17 EV's
Minnesota, Kerry by 3.5%, 10 EV's
Nevada, Bush by 3.6%, 5 EV's
Oregon, Kerry by 4%, 7 EV's
Florida, Bush by 5%, 27 EV's
Washington, Kerry by 5.6%, 11 EV's
Colorado, Bush by 6.2%, 9 EV's
New Jersey, Kerry by 6.2%, 15 EV's
Missouri, Bush by 7.3%, 11 EV's
Delaware, Kerry by 7.5%, 3 EV's
Maine, Kerry by 8.1%, 4 EV's
Virginia, Bush by 8.7%, 13 EV's
Hawaii, Kerry by 8.7%, 4 EV's
Arkansas, Bush by 9.8%, 6 EV's
That's 20 states. You campaign for all 50. But you pay particular attention to these 20. The question is what the primaries tell you about the relative strength of Clinton and Obama against McCain in these 20 states. I'm not sure it tells you much, but whatever it tells you about these 20 is a lot more important that what you've learned from Hillary winning, say, California, or Obama winning Georgia.
The SUSA survey noted in the first reply probably tells you more about the relative strengths of these two candidates in those 20 states than do the primary results.
Looking at the 20 states in terms of Obama's percentage minus Hillary's running against McCain, per the SUSA polls, you get this ordering:
Hawaii, Obama +26
Washington, Obama +16
Colorado, Obama +15
Iowa, Obama +14
Nevada, Obama +13
Oregon, Obama +13
Virginia, Obama +10
New Hampshire, Obama +10
Maine, Obama +8
New Mexico, Obama +7
Wisconsin, Obama +7
Delaware, Obama +4
Minnesota, Obama +3
Michigan, Obama +1
Ohio, tie
Missouri, Clinton +2
New Jersey, Clinton +5
Pennsylvania, Clinton +6
Florida, Clinton +11
Arkansas, Clinton +31
Working just with differences of at least 5 percentage points between the two candidates, Clinton seems to give you a much better shot at flipping Arkansas and Florida, a slightly better shot at holding on to New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Obama gives you a much better chance of flipping Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and Virginia and a slightly better chance of flipping New Mexico. Obama also gives you a much better chance of holding onto Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire, and a slightly stronger shot at holding onto Maine and Wisconsin.
It's interesting to note that Hillary won the popular primary/caucus vote in both contested states in which she has an advantage (Arkansas and New Jersey). She also won the popular vote in some contested states at which she is at a disadvantage (Nevada, New Mexico, and New Hampshire). And she won one in which there really is no gap between how SUSA thinks the two would fare vs. McCain, Ohio.
That last paragraph is another signal about how difficult it is to predict general election results from primary results.
There is an interesting report at
http://jedreport.com/2008/03/republicans-now.html
The increasing participation of Republicans voting in the Democrat primary ever since Rush Limbaugh and his copycats told Republicans to vote for Hillary (whom Rush hates) is documented and discussed. Obviously it is to the Republicans' advantage to defeat Obama before Obama defeats McCain. Hillary's chances of defeating McCain are far inferior to Obama's. Before McCain locked up the nomination, only 3.9% of Democrat primary voters were self-described Republicans and most voted for Obama (the Obamacans); now it's 12% and most vote for Hillary! Furthermore, many Hillary voters have negative feelings about her! No wonder! They have no intention of voting for her in November!
First off, the Primaries are not going to be a clear indicia of how a race will turn out in a General. The opponents in the Primary are vastly different than the General, as is the voting pool. One has to survey the matchups with the new candidate.
That's where the Survey USA poll comes in. Now admittedly, it's a long ways out from Novemeber...but so are the Primaries (some actually much longer out). But the Survey USA results clearly shows that Obama not only wins most of the Blue States won by Clinton in their match ups (Ohio, California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois) but that he does much better in a number of "battleground States", including making several erstwhile "Red State" into "battlegrounds" or sure wins. Obama does that in Texas, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Nebraska, the Carolinas, the Dakotas, Virginia, Wisconsin and Indiana. Clinton loses most of those States and where Obama has a victory she trails McCain in the rest. And Hillary appears to lose Democratic strongholds like Deleware, Hawaii, Washington and Oregon, which Obama easily wins.
Hillary does win Arkansas ties McCain in Tennessee, and is a bit better in Florida.
In addition the Survey USA poll only examined preferences by "Likely Voters". Thus new voters and enthusiasm levels are not creditted. Obama is likely to attract more young, newly registered, as well as formerly "discouraged" voters. Thus he has a turnout advantage over Clinton, who might actually even bring forth an "anti-Hillary" bloc.
Most of these States the local Congressional and Senate candidates would benefit more from an Obama candidacy, simply because Obama would be in the State actively campaigning. Clinton is so far behind in most that she would merely try to "hold" the Blue States. Of course those Congresspeople that are in these states are in rather safe citadels, so don't benefit from her presence. But her name on the ballot would hurt Democratic candidates if there was a general outpouring of Republicans who really dislike Clinton.
And in some states, like Texas...Democrats like Rick Noriega...who will attract Tejano voters will also benefit from a heavy black and youth turnout for Obama...and vice versa. Hillary would merely draw the same base of support.
Comments closed March 26, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Of course, the real answer comes from SurveyUSA.
Posted by Mark | March 12, 2008 2:55 PM