Winning the states you need to win.
Hillary is doing it. Obama is not. Hillary Clinton is winning Ohio, a swing state that Democrats need to win in the fall. With 80% of the precincts reporting, Hillary is beating Obama by 14% in. Hillary has also won California, New York, Massachusetts, and Florida (even though the vote did not count, and they may be holding new elections there).
What is even more important is that Hillary with 80% of the vote reporting has more votes than all the other Republican candidates combined, Obama does not. Now, it is possible that other, more conservative, areas of the state may still report and when the vote reaches 100% that fact may not be true. However, the goal here (as I have said from day one) is to elect the most electable Democratic candidate. I had my doubts about Hillary initially. However, it is clear that she is winning the states that she will need to win in the fall and Obama is winning states that he will not win in the fall.
Change is great. If Obama wins I will support him 100%. However, I fear that the idealism that people are feeling for Barack Obama is a lot like the blind following that a certain Governor of Louisiana had in his election. Louisiana is learning, some faster than others, that the blind faith they put in Jindal was misplaced. If Obama cannot rally enough support in states where the Democrats need him to win, but he still manages to win the primaries, will his victory be a Phyrric (Olbermann’s new favorite word) one? Obama supporters need to take a long hard look in the mirror and really consider whether an Obama victory will mean a Democratic victory in the fall. We should not blindly support ”change” if at the end of the day we end up with more of the same.
And of course, Hillary can “win” Texas and Obama could get more delegates out of Texas, something the political spinsters will love and will make this race into even more of a headache.
MSNBC is also reporing that there was a supposed call from Obama to Clinton tonight. Im sure that if this did happen it really meant nothing other than perhaps a “congrats” on winning Ohio.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Are Cali, NY and Mass suddenly “in play”? Those aren’t the states that a Dem “has” to win. Those are the states that a Dem WILL win. Whether Clinton took her home state and other deep blue states in the primaries is irrelevant.
Also, the GOP primary vote total is rather meaningless, since most viewed the contest as already decided. This wasn’t an energized GOP electorate. These data points do not mean that Clinton would take Ohio from McCain in the fall.
And if “electability” is an issue for Obama, I don’t think a comparison to Jindal is very persuasive.
The Ohio results should give Obama supporters pause, to be sure. But extrapolating GE results from primary performances is a very shaky way to analyze such things.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:36 am
“Are Cali, NY and Mass suddenly “in play”? Those aren’t the states that a Dem “has” to win. Those are the states that a Dem WILL win.”
Cali, NY, and Mass are not in play (even though MSNBC reported last night that McCain thinks he may be able to grab California). That being the case, Democrats do need to win those states to win the presidency. The fact that they will likely win them doesn’t change the need to win them.
Ohio is in play, and Hillary won by 10 points. While the results don’t show that Hillary will win Ohio in the fall (if she would get the nomination) it does show that Hillary did a better job of getting out the vote in a swing state that the Democrats need to win iin 2008 (and, ignoring voting controversy, failed to win in 2004).
“And if “electability” is an issue for Obama, I don’t think a comparison to Jindal is very persuasive.”
The comparison to Jindal was not meant to show how electable Obama is. It is meant to show that people blindly following an idea without thinking about the consequences of their actions can have disastrous effects. People blindly followed Jindal as a vehicle for change and are now having buyer’s remorse because he has shown that he is the same old politician. People who blindly follow Obama, someone who has shown no ability to get more votes than Clinton in the important swing states, and his being a vehicle for change could leave us with the result of having someone representing the Democratic Party who does not do the best job in bringing out voters in the states we need the Democratic candidate to win. How smart will it be if Hillary wins primaries in OH, PA, and FL and Obama is the nominee?
Now, I understand it is highly possible that people who come out for Clinton may very well still come out for Obama. It is also possible that people who come out for Obama may come out against Clinton. If I owned a crystal ball, this would be much easier. However, I can only go on the evidence that exists and that evidence shows me that Clinton does a better job at getting out the vote in swing states.
“The Ohio results should give Obama supporters pause, to be sure. But extrapolating GE results from primary performances is a very shaky way to analyze such things.”
I don’t recall saying that someone would definitively win or lose in the general election based on these results. What I did say is that Obama supporters in the upcoming primaries need to consider the ramifications of their actions and they need to consider the idea that we need to elect the person who is more likely to win the swing states and not the person who may be their first choice. If voting for their first choice causes their worst choice to get elected, then their vote really didn’t really do them any good now did it?
Now, another thing that I have been considering is that Obama could win those states that Democrats typically don’t win IF his base comes out in force and Republican voters stay home because they are not excited about McCain. Is that possibility worth the gamble? I don’t think so.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
The Dems don’t need to win Ohio. They could, and should win OH, but it is not a must win “swing state”. Same goes for FL. Obama for example, could conceivably lose OH and FL but win Iowa, Colorado and Virginia (plus Kerry’s states).
Plus, Obama would be better able than Clinton to comfortably hold Wisconsin (which has been ultra close the last two cycles) and Minnesota– (if Mac picks Pawlenty for Veep).
“McCain thinks he may be able to grab California” The Goop candidates always say this… and get trounced. I hope Mac goes all out in Cali.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
What evidence is there that Democrats are more likely to win Virginia, Iowa, and Colorodo under Obama then they are to win 2/3 of FL/OH/PA under either Democrat? (I am not denying the evidence exists, I just don’t see it at this time)
And I am not saying that Obama is not more likely to win VA than Clinton. However, I just don’t know that either of them will beat McCain in VA.
Last time, Bush won VA by 8 points, by 5 points in CO, and he did squeak out the 7 electoral votes by 1% in IA.
I think it is much easier to win the states Kerry won + OH than it will be to win the states Kerry won + VA/IA/CO.
Last election, the big talk was who could win 2/3 of the 3 swing states. Do you think that the situation has changed that much?
March 6th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Iowa is a lead pipe cinch for Obama against Mac. Neighboring Ill, ethanol… it’s a cinch.
Obama’s turnout numbers in VA were tremendous. Here’s a Survey USA poll from 2/19 from VA:
48% McCain
45% Clinton
7% Undecided
45% McCain
51% Obama
4% Undecided
VA and CO have been trending blue for the past four years.
Clinton will definitely have to win 2/3 of the “swing states”– it’s her only chance, and if she wins FL or OH, it will be by a microscopic margin. Assuming she can “hold” places like Wisconsin.
Obama has other avenues to the nomination. VA/CO/IA is plausible.
Plus, with CLinton, the GOP has the luxury of targeting their limited resources into far fewer states, since Clinton doesn’t broaden the map. If it’s all about OH and FL, that helps them immeasurably.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am
As for Colorado, the most recent poll was 2/13 from Rasmussen (which I don’t put too much faith in), but still here’s a data point:
“Barack Obama (D) currently holds a seven-point advantage over John McCain (R), 46% to 39%. However, if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, McCain will begin the race with a fourteen point advantage, 49% to 35%”
As for Ohio, the latest poll I found was from Univ of Cincinnati (2/27):
Obama (D) 48%, McCain (R) 47%
McCain (R) 51%, Clinton (D) 47%
These are just isolated snapshots.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Interesting
March 6th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
And you suggested it would be too expensive to run a poll in every state.
March 6th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Not sure I intended to suggest that– just that it’s much more expensive to do 50 polls versus one. I stand by that earlier comment and analysis.
March 6th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Well, you pointed out the cost of such a poll in response to my complaint of not seeing such a poll.
I absolutely agree that this poll must have been much more expensive. I am just very happy that someone did it anyway. (And very happy you pointed it out to me).