The Lingering Electability Issue

Ok, so I've fallen a bit out of love with Hillary Clinton, but that doesn't mean I am now in love with Barack Obama. While she's lost me on the character front, I still have issues with him in terms of overall electability come November 4th.

An interesting thing has happened this week. With sort of an "a-ha!" giddiness, many Democrats -- presumably hard-core Obamakins -- have been sending me a link to the Election Projection website which indicates a 293-245 electoral vote lead for the junior Senator from Illinois in a head-to-head against the GOP's presumptive nominee John McCain. Now while the site gets to this prediction by making very broad assumptions about who will win what in the general election, I decided to tally the states Obama won versus those that Hillary won (FL/MI not included) using the site's own red/blue gauge. The results should give super-delegates, and Democrats overall, serious reason for concern. Here's how Obama's past and projected victories in the Democratic primaries stack up in the general election according to the Election Projection website:

IA--weak Dem
DC--solid Dem
NH--mod Dem
NV--weak GOP
SC--strong GOP
AL--strong GOP
ID--solid GOP
ND--solid GOP
Del--strong Dem
UT--solid GOP
Kan--solid GOP
CT--sold Dem
Ala--solid GOP
CO--weak Dem
GA--strong GOP
MN--strong Dem
Ill--solid Dem
NEB--solid GOP
LA--mod GOP
WASH--strong Dem
Maine--strong Dem
MD--solid Dem
VA--weak GOP
HA--solid Dem
Wisc--weak Dem
VT--solid Dem
TX--strong GOP
Miss--strong GOP
MO--weak GOP
NC--mod GOP
Ore--strong Dem
SD--solid GOP
Montana--strong GOP
Wyoming--solid GOP

Only 44% of the above are in any way considered Democratic states. Now take a look at the states Clinton has won:

NM--Mod Dem
OK--solid GOP
Ark--solid GOP
AZ--strong GOP
TN--mod GOP
Mass--solid Dem
NJ--strong Dem
NY--solid Dem
CA--strong Dem
OH--weak Dem
PA--mod Dem
Ind--strong GOP
WV--mod GOP
RI--solid Dem

Hillary's blue states total 57%. So the inference Election Projection is making is that, in terms of the electoral college, none of this really matters, and that Obama will win the general simply by picking up Clinton's big, key blue states come November despite likely losing half or more of his primary states. That's a pretty big overall leap. Let's just hope they, and the Obama supporters, are correct. Judging from all the latest polling of head-to-heads against McCain, and of the key swing states, I'm not so sure.

Comments

[JamieStarr]

How do people keep making this argument, have it disproved and yet continue to repackage it and make it again?

If you want to make an electability argument against Obama, that's fine. However...

These are DEMOCRATIC voters. She won these states in a DEMOCRATIC primary. That does not mean she would win them in a general election. Nor, doesn it mean the states that Obama won will be his in a genreal election.

This is a nomination process that is separate from the election, yet people keep trying to translate the results as if there is a direct correlation.

Are we concerned that McCain will win California? He carried it in the primary, so based on this logic, he has a shot there.

What we should look at is the Republican brand taking a beating in these special elections, the enormous turnout at these primaries/caucuses and the tremendous fundraising on the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Once we stop tearing each other apart of this nomination, we'll be in a great position.

[egal]

Or you could look at the sites that actually do progression instead of pulling numbers out of the ether and projecting assumptions that go against every poll taken.

[army193]

Your living in the primary world and polls...Its like Hillary running a 20th century campaign and still living in that world. Now is the time you get out into the 21st century.

[SeriousBlack]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/29/poll-new-york-dems-say-ob_n_104225.html

With only a few exceptions such as West Virginia and Kentucky, I see no reason why this type of phenomenon would not apply very prominently. Especially after 5 months of smart campaigning (like he's been doing for the last 17 months) directly against McCain, who surely has to be one of the weakest Republican nominees in memory.

I find it curious that Clinton supporters (or those making arguments on behalf of Clinton) continue to insist on extrapolating current Democrat vs. Democrat polls and nominee race results to a Democrat vs. Republican general election 5 months from now.

I'm sure you would be making the exact same argument on behalf of Obama if it were Hillary ahead in every single metric at this point (as opposed to having been screaming for him to concede 3 months ago).

[DennyCrane]

Of all the groups that Hillary wins (working class whites, women, older voters, and Hispanics), the only one Obama probably won't win is working class whites who refuse to vote for a black person. Hispanics will rally behind Obama because the GOP is anti-immigrant. Women, even if they're angry now, will rally behind Obama because McCain will help overturn Roe v. Wade, will do nothing to increase access to health care, will continue No Child Left Behind, and will keep our kids in Iraq. Older voters have their hangups about race but I suspect they'll split down the middle. And Obama could do even better if he picks someone like Kathleen Sebelius as his running mate. Female, older, white, governor, Catholic. That'll win back most of the people who voted for Hillary. As for McCain, the more he morphs into Bush, the worse his chances become. I still think Obama is more electable. Obama doesn't inspire hatred the way Hillary does. If she's on the ticket, even as VP, Republicans would have a record turnout. This woman inspires hatred like no other candidate.

[sunu20]

"Electability" isn't even a real metric. It's guessing at how people *might* vote in the future. There is no reliable way to measure future data. The only thing you need to be "electable" is people's votes. That's not the candidate's job, it's ours.

[DeadDogDemocrat]

Using the primary map to forcast the general is wasted effort. I tend to agree that Clinton is marginally more electable, but here's the scenario where she'd lose: indies, when they were forced to decide, might have concluded that the baggage Clinton brings with her simply wasn't worth it. If that happened, Clinton could run the best campaign and still lose. Republicans were chomping at the bit to run against her. If they had anything new think she would have gone down.
I like Obama's map for two reasons: he puts more states in play (he has a distant chance to win in places like North Carolina, Mississippi, etc., and we know the more obvious ones); in a year where voters might be prepared to vote for the Democrats simply because they're not Republicans, the Dems might be better off if they nominate someone who doesn't remind many why they don't like Democrats (Clinton this year, can we agree, was the person we all thought we knew).
When the next census is taken as many as 12 EC votes might move from blue to red states. Over the long-term, the Dems will have no choice but to expand their reach to other parts of the country.

[Pherdnut]

Again, why would I trust your political insight given your lengthy support of Hillary. The Clintons are universally hated by all but democrats, and even among Dems, Clinton support has faded.

She had zero pull on moderates and in a campaign all about reform and change against two candidates who at least pretend they're serious about campaign finance reform she was hauling a truckload of special interests from the Clinton presidential library.

If you're concerned about electability, why did you support Hillary in the first place?

[AdamX]

Get over your issues, Andy, and start campaigning for Obama. Your whole thesis is falacious.

[mim132]

The proof isn't in the so-called electoral college predictions, or absolute bullshit polls that a year ago told us that the nominations of HRC and Giuliani would be long wrapped up right now. The proof is bumper- stickered to cars and posted on peoples lawns. The Obama "cool-aid" as it's called is real, and sadly there is no poll of this to point to for you wonderful bloggers, there is no "McCain-aid". Eight years ago where I live the automaton class posted there preference for GWB, today virtually all signs (literally) of that has been replaced with Obama. Meaning Obama has the two largest generational groups in his pocket: Boomers and Millenials, along with the elites and the automatons. Together this is a winning combination. Seriously, who does McCain have? The Evangelicals? Nope, of any group they are most likely to sit this election out. Leaving the whopping 27% who support Bush and some independents who still believe McCain is the same politician he was eight years ago. Can anybody, no bullshit, explain to me why the pundit class insists McCain is so electable. When breaking away from my computer I simply do not see the the ground level enthusiasm for McCain that makes a President. Please, someone tell me how wrong I am.

GOBAMA!!!

[JaStewrt]

I believe you are 100% correct.

[dadumdee]

Campaigning is when you get people who weren't going to vote for you to change their minds and vote for you. Part of that is getting people who weren't going to vote, registered to vote, and then vote for you. Obama has done that excellently in the primary, and has the potential to do it better for the actual election if Democrats unite, and Clinton actively supports him. Whiney posts like yours don't help. We are supposed to be on the same team. Obama is the nominee. Please stop racking your brain trying to figure out ways that he can lose and lets start uniting and thinking about ways that he (and we) can win!!!!

[SeriousBlack]

"Please stop racking your brain trying to figure out ways that he can lose and lets start uniting and thinking about ways that he (and we) can win!!!!"

Hear hear!

[harriscrl3]

Imo there is no way to prove or disprove the electability argument until the general election. Kerry was electable look what happened in the general. I personally think these polls are flawed I dont think they are reaching Obama's base. I think the big advantage Obama has is that he can change the demographic landscape by bringing in new people. I think thats a safer bet than Hilary.

Carol

[BitJam]

Early in the primary season, Obama was way ahead of Clinton in terms of electability in November. This fact was touted by some Obama supporters as yet another reason he should be the Democratic nominee.

Shortly thereafter, there was a mass defection away from Obama by Clinton supporters in those electability polls and in exit polls. This makes perfect sense. The electability issue was damaging Clinton, therefore her supporters started telling the pollsters whatever was necessary to help their candidate.

The bottom line is that right now is the worst time possible to get meaningful information from electability polls. As long as Clinton appears to have even a miniscule chance of winning the nomination then it makes no sense for her supporters to accurately answer poll questions about voting for Obama in November.

[Countess]

The idea that a vote in a primary election somehow predicts something about the general election is too stupid to even discuss. It has been proven over and over again how meaningless this is as a guide to a general election. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton would be a candidate that would do anything to win in a primary or a general election but the depressing part comes afterward when you realize that you have just elected a democratic neocon queen without any ethical standards so who cares whether she is electable or not.

[Chillinout]

The only question that needs to be asked here is: "If Hillary is more electable, then why do most of the Republicans, (52%) want her to win the nomination?"

hmmmmm.......