Clinton's General Election Disaster in the Making

Of the many strange spins the Clinton campaign has sold the media, few are as troubling as the idea that she is the stronger general election candidate: pretty much all polling, sound judgment and anecdotal evidence point to the contrary, but we are led to believe that New York and Massachusetts, those quintessential swing states, are in danger if Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate.

Hopefully, broader recent polling and perhaps a second look by the math geniuses in the mainstream media (and on many blogs) should finally put to rest the notion that with Clinton at the top of the ticket, Democrats are heading for anything but a potential disaster.

With SurveyUSA's 50 state polling of McCain vs Obama and McCain vs Clinton, as well as studies by other credible pollsters such as Rasmussen, a fascinating picture is emerging, and it is not pretty for those who believe Clinton will do any better than John Kerry or Al Gore if she is the nominee. Let's start with one myth that is just a few days old: Clinton's strength in Ohio. Her thinking (and therefore much of the media's) is that she won the primary, Ohio is important in the general election, Obama is dead because he can't win Ohio. Yet SurveyUSA shows a rather different picture: Clinton and Obama win Ohio with the exact same percentages: 50% to John McCain's 40%.

Then there are the top states in which Clinton does much better than Obama, which read like something straight out of "Deliverance:" Arkansas, West Virginia, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Kentucky (in that order, without adding or omitting any). To give Clinton her due, according to SurveyUSA, she would indeed make the first three of these states competitive. This is ironic since her campaign's whole point is that Obama wins primary states in which Democrats don't have a prayer in the fall. Leaving aside Arkansas, one of Clinton's home states, this is exactly how most objective observers would describe Tennessee and, even more so, Oklahoma. At the other end of the political spectrum, in New York and Massachusetts, yes, Clinton does better there too, but obviously it doesn't matter since any Democrat will win those (on a side note, why does Massachusetts dislike Obama as much as Oklahoma does?).

As for Obama's strongest states by comparison to Clinton, the first observation is that there are far more than Clinton's seven: there are 18. At the top of the list is mostly the Clinton-hating Western and Plains heartland and Obama's own two home states: Utah, Hawaii, Vermont, Nebraska, North Dakota, Idaho, Illinois and Alaska. Of these, he actually manages to make Nebraska, North Dakota and Alaska competitive against McCain (the last time any of these states voted for a Democrat for president was in 1964).

More interesting, though, are the states slightly further down the list, those that Obama wins or ties and Clinton loses: Washington, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, Oregon, New Hampshire, Virginia and New Mexico. Now how's that for places where a Democrat shouldn't even be thinking of running if she can't be competitive? And then there are yet more crucial states in which Obama is significantly stronger than Clinton and in which she struggles against McCain: Maine, Wisconsin, North Carolina and (yes) Texas. Despite her narrow primary win in the Lone Star state a few days ago, Clinton loses there against McCain, while Obama ties him.

To be fair, there is one state in which Clinton does better outside of the mostly Appalachian ones listed above: Florida. This, of course, is a state in which the candidates haven't campaigned and if the recent past is any indication, one in which the primary race will get closer (if there is another contest) and Obama will end up performing at least as well as Clinton in a general election. Even now, Obama is in a statistical tie there with McCain.

There is good news for Democrats in general in this recent polling, besides the fact that some of the states mentioned above are competitive for at least one of the candidates. It is stunning, in a good way, that Texas, North Carolina, Kansas and South Carolina are in single digits (mostly with a clear advantage for Obama vs Clinton). There are also concerns: neither candidate is putting away New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan, and both are losing Missouri. Here too, this is more of a problem for Clinton, who cannot count on a significant shift of previously Republican states to make up for these potential losses.

The overall picture is gloomy for Clinton and, without more confidence in her ability to strengthen her position in the general election, the superdelegates and even primary voters will not cast their lot with Clinton in high enough numbers for her to get to November. The burden now rests clearly on her to show us a path to victory in a general election, the polling for which indicates far too many close races for her in states Democrats must win, and a failure on her part to add enough independent and Republican-leaning states to the competitive mix.

Clinton starts off at a disadvantage anyway among swing groups, on top of which everything about her recent campaign seems set to compound the problem: the scorched earth attacks on Obama are alienating many of his supporters who may not vote for her in November (including potentially the most important party constituency, African-Americans); her disparagement of "red" states makes it ever less likely that independents there will consider voting for her; even her GOP-style "3am" ad, which apparently contributed to stopping Obama's poll rise in Ohio and Texas, is a sure loser against McCain in the general election: how could she ever win the experience contest against McCain?

The importance of these general election poll numbers cannot be overestimated, even at this stage. For instance, Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado, an undecided superdelegate, says he will base his decision on how best he can "deliver the nine electoral votes from Colorado to the nominee." Given that in the SurveyUSA poll Obama beats McCain 51% to 40% in Colorado, and McCain beats Clinton 48% to 42%, I don't think Salazar will be on the fence too long on this one. Nor will any superdelegate up for reelection this fall anywhere outside of Massachusetts.

Comments

[argent1]

Your stats are that, stats. Polls and psychology like water and oil only mix when the water is steam.

[Herrington]

"Polls and psychology like water and oil only mix when the water is steam"
It depends on what the meaning of "mix" is.

Polls are both a measure of psychology and influence psychology. Test and measurement is in fact a significant field of psychology, applied everywhere from screening to psychoanalysis. Polls are in fact what social psychology uses to establish baselines for normative behavior.

Polling is a science of social psychology. Science is the problem, or rather people's mistrust of science. Republicans have spent a great deal of effort to discredit science, prefering to rely on the scientifically derived assessment that people who mistrust science are more easily influenced.

Polling is by far the best tool available for determining likely behavior. Speculation is, by contrast, in the imagination of the speculator, and as recent elections have shown, the accuracy of speculation is running at an error rate of about 50%. While polls, statistically, have and error rate of less than 8%, plus or minus 4%.

[DudeE]

Polling is a statistical exercise. It's the underlying motivations and subsequent analysis that entail psychology. If you had a point, it's lost somewhere in your faux intellectual rambling...

[DudeE]

And it's worth noting the same survey you reference shows both Clinton and Obama beating McCain in a general election with a margin which varies by a handful of electoral votes. Somehow that's all distilled into a "gloomy" picture for Clinton. Of course.

[Herrington]

Wow, DudeE, you have commented on 7 posts and already have 56 fans. There most be a bunch of people who are easily impressed out there. But, I've been noticing that more these days, commenters with little or no history and big fan collections. What could that mean?

[DudeE]

I'm really not sure of the point you're making, but I've been a HuffPoster for nearly a year and many of my "fans" are people with whom I've enjoyed a lively dialogue over that period.

Yes I support Clinton. Apparently that's reason to approach me like a total ass.

[Herrington]

24 electoral votes versus 12, or roughly 2 standard deviations versus 1. Either could win, but by mathematical convention being off by 1 standard deviation is possible 37% of the time, while being off by 2 standard deviations is possible only 4.6% of the time, making Obama, at this point, nearly ten times more likely to win than Clinton.

[DudeE]

Huh? She tallied 276 electoral votes and Obama tallied 280. By my math that's 4 electoral votes.

[DudeE]

Way to take a page from the Republican playbook. You know, Bush's "mandate" because he won 2/3 of states in the 200 election? And of course let's disparage those "Deliverance" states like W. Virginia and Arkansas while anointing North Dakota's votes as inherently more coveted.

Classic case of cherry-picking the facts which support your conclusion and disparaging those which shoot it down. Thanks for another gem.

[Herrington]

While it is unseemly to disparage states based on Hollywood stereotypes, that in on way means the poster is cherry picking the facts. The observation and the assertion have no possible logical connection.

[DudeE]

You apparently don't get that pointing out Hollywood stereotypes and cherry picking facts are not mutually exclusive phenomena. You've unfortunately conflated those two points where I, in fact, made no connection. In shorthand, your argument is not nearly as cogent as your swagger would suggest.

[marykins123]

Clinton lost this Independent's vote when this past week when she began her 'campaign' for McCain. This is the election for the Democrat's of a lifetime and Clinton is on a path, if their candidate - which seems likely - to not only lose the White House, but because of a large turnout of Repubs. to cast a vote AGAINST Clinton, they put their slim majority in the House in jeopardy. (Imagine that when all these women supporting Clinton just because she is a woman wake up on find that female Pelosi is out of a job as Speaker of the House.)
Since when has either Party, during primary season, pumped someone's credentials from the "other" party and taken down THEIR party's other choice? No, I will not cast a vote for Clinton - it's all about Hillary

[indie17]

Paul, thanks for analyzing these surveys for us! Great results, and they support what many of us independent Obama supporters have thought all along.

[KaySieverding]

My father is old, lives in Fla., and has been voting Republican but he told me he would vote for Obama. We both think the symbolism of having a black man for president at this time is invaluable.

[BubbaC33]

Your thinking and that of your father is absolutely wrong and against the ideas put forth by MLK. The color of Obama's skin does not matter. Vote for him because you consider him to be more qualified, but skin color does not and should not factor into your decision. I believe that would be called racism.

[indie17]

It's not quite as simple as that, Bubba. Here's an interesting article about how Obama would present a new face for America to the world.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3056283.ece

[Doofus]

Y'know, for anyone who's been around 'that' long, anyone who will admit

to voting 'twice for Bush', if they're willing & enthusiastic now about voting

for Obama, that's a kind of 'racism' that's probably ok. Go for it!

[weavermiami]

I think I can get my "voted twice for Bush" mom in Florida to vote for Obama, but guaranteed she won't touch the screen for "Hillbilly" as she calls her. Not sure what it's about completely, but there's a vehement against Clinton that can't be reasoned with in a lot of places.

[Herrington]

Funny thing about polls, when they are exhibiting results in your favor they are accurate and if not they suck. I"ve already heard Clinton supporters citing how the polls were wrong in 3 states during the primaries. Therefore all polls are wrong. By my humble thinking, that discounts the 38 states in which they were right rather unfairly. If they are wrong 7.3% of the time, and wrong close to the published margin of error that 7.3% of the time, then they are actually right very close to 100% of the time.

Polls are inexact, they are snapshot in a changing landscape, they are subject to framing error, and they have been with us a long time and these inexactitudes are known. But on the balance, they are very seldom wildly wrong. So relax.

I know that math and statistics are hard for most people, especially when passions are high. But when I hear some suggest that national polling is meaningless until both parties nominees have been chosen, I have to wonder. I wonder what kind of mind would suggest the logical fallacy that you must make a choice before the effects of your choice may be foreseen, almost literally, I will not know if the hot stove will burn me until I am actually burned.

Now given even the inexactitudes of polling, polls that suggest a wider margin of victory for one candidate as opposed to a narrower margin for the other candidate, which is the better choice? Well, go ahead a touch the stove if you must, but remember that you will not be able to remove your hand for at least four more years.

[altohone]

Questioning our math skills really hurts dude.

But we're just kids who don't know better than to touch a hot stove, so...

[DudeE]

He seems entranced by the sound of his own voice... or more precisely, the sound of his fingers tapping on keys...

[1dogs2]

I was encouraged about the likelihood of a Democratic win in November as indicated by the polls upon which this piece is based until the results of the post-Texas/Ohio primaries Newsweek poll came out. Before those primaries, polls had shown both Clinton and Obama winning a match-up with McCain, Clinton by 6% and Obama by 12%. The Newsweek poll still shows both of them winning, but only by a few percentage points -- well within the margin of error.

While McCain surely got a boost from having clinched the Republican nomination last week, it also appears that the scorched-earth tactics of the Clinton campaign have had the predictable result -- it has damaged BOTH Democratic candidates. But that's appears to be okay with Clinton. She has made it clear that she would rather see McCain in the White House than Obama.

It is still early days and the polls will change often between now and November. One thing we can all count on, however; if Clinton continues to campaign as she has periodically thoughout the past few months, Democrats will have little to celebrate in November.

[Doofus]

Primaries which are completely 'open' such as Texas, or 'semi-open'

such as Ohio tend to confuse the pollsters, perhaps. The Texas Demo

primary was entirely open to voters from any & no party. The Ohio primary,

being 'semi-open' permitted voters to change their party affiliation on

the spur of the moment. Since pollsters usually record their data by

party affiliation, they aren't necessarily going to handle the cross-over

voter, and so not predict outcomes all that well for such states.

[DudeE]

You're going well beyond the reasoning capacity of most here. Otherwise you could also open up the inherent problems of caucus voting which - at least in early states - overstated the support for front-runners at the expense of minor candidates and is pretty far afield from the one person-one vote secret ballot system in place in the general election.

[SamThornton]

One thing that makes the SurveyUSA polling so interesting is their track record in predicting election outcomes, clearly the best in most instances.

It's beginning to look like the Clinton campaign has become more about Bill Clinton's legacy and status in the Democratic Party than Sen. Clinton's chance for the nomination. Sen. Clinton and her staff read the same polling everyone else reads. Sure, they have their own internal polling, but that's mostly targeted at trying to determine effective campaign tactics and are probably much less reliable statistically.

The Clinton persistence in the face of clear indicators the Senator's chances to be a legitimate nominee are between slim and none argues that some calculation beyond reality is in charge in her campaign. This sounds depressingly familiar.

[ClevelandTom]

Boiling it all down...

Clinton can only win the general election if she takes three out of four of the big swing states - FL, MI, OH, and PA. Neither Gore nor Kerry could do it running against Bush and I suggest it will be even harder for Clinton to do it against McCain.

On the other hand, Obama has other ways to win the general election. He can win with only two of the four big swing states by taking a few smaller states that Dems don't usually manage to take.

I hope that the Dem super delegates, who I assume are weighing their decision mostly on electability, are reading the same information as Mr. Jenkins.

[altohone]

Count me as one who will not vote for Hillary.


I favor the idea of reforming from within, but if the establishment slams the door in our faces, reforming from the outside (as we were forced to do when Bill Clinton rammed NAFTA through Congress and even more so since Bush was elected) is all we can do.

As poll numbers also show, we've been quite successful at turning around public opinion on issues ranging from the war to global warming despite opposition and roadblocks from our "leaders" in both parties. One could even argue that the best way to shut up the "left" (or as I call them the majority of Americans) would be to give us the power the delegate count suggests we have.

Capitulation to the establishment's choice for our party is not an option.

BTW, the SECOND PLACE candidate offering the LEADER the VP slot is the height of arrogance.
Obama offering Hillary the VP slot would make me seriously question his judgement. Not only would it create a nightmare for the Secret Service, but it would lend credence to the idea that voting for the Bush agenda is tolerable. The only reason to do it would be to try to get a real Democrat elected to her Senate seat... and the risk of her ascension is too great a risk.

[MPeter]

No one with half the brains would hire a nanny with a resume as thin and as padded as Hllary's. Yet the MSM is selling us the bool of Hillary the strong candidate. She has lied about her foreign policy experience incvluding her role in the Rwandan genocide, Kossovo and Ireland. They have all been exposerd as lies. Read this below:

Irish blast Clinton's foreign policy claim


Published: March 9, 2008 at 8:18 AM
Print story Email to a friend Font size:BELFAST, Northern Ireland, March 9 (UPI) -- David Trimble, who helped broker peace in Northern Ireland said Sen. Hillary Clinton's role in those negotiations was that of a cheerleader, not a participant.

Presidential contender Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., told CNN Wednesday that she "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland" as foreign policy experience becomes the latest issue in the Democratic presidential race.

"I don't know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill (Clinton) going around," Trimble said, adding, "I don't want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player," The Sunday Telegraph reported.

Conall McDevitt, who served as the chief negotiator during the Good Friday Agreement talks that ended the conflict between England and Northern Ireland, said there was "no contact with her" during the negotiating processes.

McDevitt said Clinton played a supporting role following the signing of the agreement.

"So in a classic woman politicky sort of way I think she was active ... She was certainly investing some time, no doubt about it. Whether she was involved on the issue side I think probably not," McDevitt said.

The Clinton campaign responded to the statements saying they were "quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as First Lady.

[altohone]

Don't hold your breath waiting for the corporate media to expose the truth.
Similar statements out of Canada were ignored too.

Thanks for the clip.

[Grulg]

Great-here Again is a little reality check for the Cult of Prince Obama:

1: If he's sooooo much better vs. McCain nationally, then WHY cannot he beat Hillary in a Big State? TX? OH? NY? CA? MA? NJ? You guys ever heard of any of those? Goodey. He wins UT, Neb, etc. No way the GOP Loses those to Either of these birds, the Clintonistas OR Prince Obama. C'mon.

2: If he's Soooooo much better vs. McCain nationally than Hillary, then Please explain how he keeps choking in the clutch whenever he has a chance to close the deal and knock her out-be it after Iowa, or Super Tuesday, and then on March 4th. Clearly-he can't do it. People DO have second thoughts on guys like Obama just because the novelty wears thin.

3: Here's a guy w/ a thin resume, a year's worth of kid-gloves treatment by the media, and he is Just Barely Breaking Even w/ the Clintonistas. Despite all his $$$ and all the Oprah Schmoozing and whatever. Why is this guys? C'mon.

4: Here's a guy who you tout as Mr. Crossover. Okay fine-but to who?
*Hispanics? Ain't winnin' there....lost 67% of the vote in Both Cali and TX . That ain't getting it done.

*Blue collar whites? Ain't winnin' There, either. I don't expect the Clintonistas to take the Toby Keith vote either-but if yer thinking that Prince Obama is--HAW. Go back to the latte.

*Older white females(over 60). Guess what-these are the ones that vote, and vote in High numbers. Whenever Prince Obama has had a chance to get into this rather coveted bracket of Hillary's, ya know what? He can't seem to connect. Anyone wanna guess why that is?

So anyone out there still spooging 24/7 about Prince Obama who Walks on Water, better think twice here. He still has some major crossing over to do before he gets either the nomination or the keys to the Oval Office.

You know I'm right.

[realistxxx]

It is way too early for this type of state by state argument for either Clinton or Obama. However, the 50 state strategy of Obama is more sound then the focused swing state approach of HRC. It is clear that Obama is generally more competitive than Clinton in more states and a significant number of these are traditionally red. This means that in the GE he can pressure the McCain campaign to use resources in these and therefore they will have less focus for swing states.

This strategy is superior to the Gore, Kerry, Clinton swing state strategy because you open up the entire country in a general sense providing more wiggle room for unexpected outcomes or election fraud/voter suppression in Florida, Ohio etc.

[Doofus]

The 'strategy' of understanding which states will 'stay red' and which will

turn blue is one that needs to be thought about long & hard. It's really not

too early to do this sort of analysis. The predicted outcomes can & will

change, but there certainly needs to be an understanding that it is very

likely that states which were *always red* in the past may indeed vote

*blue* if Obama is the Demo candidate.

[DudeE]

For better or for worse, the state outcome in a general election is binary. There are no electoral votes awarded proportionately. The "50 state strategy" entails its own risk as it's not enough to simply be competitive in a historically red state unless you have a reasonable assurance of winning it.

We've all been down that path where a Dem candidate wins the popular vote but loses substantially in the electoral count. Some states are really just lost causes for Democrats (likewise some for Republicans) and no amount of campaigning will change long-standing demographics.

[Doofus]

A couple of states are not 'all or nothing'. Maine & Nebraska.
That should make a big difference, no? At some point, it is
still necessary to consider that Obama may well win Red
states that Clinton would not win, and at this point it looks
like he will win more of such states than she will.

[tom928]

My only concern is that Senator Obama will likely have trouble getting the so-called 'down-scale' white Dem vote in the Fall, and will have to make that up by building on the support he has received from independents and Obama Republicans. Other than this all of Hillary's arguments on who's most electable are bull.

And the proof is in the numbers that Hillary cannot win the nomination fairly or without a dramatic misstep by Obama. As much as I've heard it bandied about, playing with Slate's Delegate Calculator brings it home: Hillary simply will not be able to get ahead of Obama in pledged delegates unless he makes some kind of devastating mistake to hurt himself.

However, Obama will still need super delegates to get him to 2,025, so from here out he must work to get his pledged delegate lead over her as healthy as possible to make the will-of-the-voters case as clear as possible to the super delegates.

The best case scenario I can make out is to win by around 200 pledged delegates. By giving Hillary PA and WV, and giving the rest to Obama (using the margins we've seen so far) he could get to around 1,700 to her 1,500. That would be a fine and clear result for him to achieve:

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

Rendell is on Meet The Press right now flatly arguing that the super delegates should overturn an Obama majority in pledged delegates to give the nomination to Hillary. McAuliffe has been sowing the same seeds.

I have now decided that if they somehow overturn Obama's majority this way, I will withdraw from the Democratic Party, register as an independent, and keep my options open for the Fall. Hillary and company will destroy the future of the Democratic Party if they pull this crap.

[ClevelandTom]

"My only concern is that Senator Obama will likely have trouble getting the so-called 'down-scale' white Dem vote in the Fall"

I think you're forgetting about a significant part of Obama's coalition and that is young people. Until now, the under-25 group has not voted in high numbers but they have turned out for Obama. These are "found" voters Obama that, IMHO, more than make up for any losses he might have among traditional Dem voters.

[DudeE]

Those "found" voters go far beyond youngsters. There has been record turnout in many of the primary states INCLUDING those won by Clinton.

The notion that every incremental voter goes for Obama is flawed to say the least.

[Doofus]

SurveyUSA's 50-state polling actually shows that both Obama & Clinton
beat McCain, Obama with a slightly larger margin.

If I'm reading the maps correctly,

States that Obama wins that Hillary would not: NH, MI, IA, ND, VA, CO, NV, OR, WA, NE (split)

States that Hillary wins that Obama would not: PA, WV, NJ, AK, FL

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Mar07.html

(Scroll down a bit to see the SurveyUSA maps.)

[indie17]

Errr, yes, but the analysis by Paul shows those states that are close, within a margin of error, etc.

I think you meant Hillary gets AR instead of AK.

According to the map, NJ is tied with 43% in the Obama vs McCain matchup, yet the map gives this to McCain. I'd say Jersey going to Obama is more likely. I also think Hillary would take the tie in Michigan against McCain.

[Doofus]

Indeed, AR, not AK.

At this point, 8 months before November, there are a lot margins

that are open to question I'm sure. For me, as an Obama supporter,

I think he can win. But McCain will draw most Repo votes and a whole

lot of independent votes. He is, as you may have heard, a devoted

supporter of National Security. If Demos cared about that, obviously

they'd necessarily become Repos.

[bellecloche]

Thanks for this post! And Clinton has got to stop including Arizona as one of her "big state" primary wins for electability arguments in a year that John McCain is running.

[DudeE]

Then it's worth noting Obama's primary victories in IL and WI are irrelevant since they go blue regardless of Democratic candidate.