Clinton's "Big State" Myth: Why Barack Obama Remains the Most Electable Democrat This Fall
The Clinton Campaign's post March 4th message is to forget about the delegate count and nominate Hillary because she can win the big states Democrats need in November. That argument simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Here's why:
1) Most of the "Big States" she has won are not battleground states in the fall. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California are solid blue states where Obama would do as well or better than Clinton in a general election against McCain.
2) Of the states she's won so far, the big exception to this rule is Ohio. Ohio is in fact a critical battleground state where Hillary has demonstrated that she has a leg up among lower income whites and older voters. But the polling also shows that in a general election, Barack offsets this advantage in Ohio among young voters and college-educated independents. In a McCain-Clinton match up the later group could gravitate heavily to McCain in Ohio.
In an Ohio general election, Obama's ability to attract independents and mobilize young and minority voters will trump Clinton's advantages among non-college whites -- a group that will break heavily for either Barack or Hillary against the "free trade" McCain.
Just remember, in Ohio right now, "national security" is a job. The economy and trade -- not "national security" -- will almost certainly continue to be the overriding issues for non-college whites in Ohio this November.
3) Obama puts in play a panoply of states where Clinton would have a much tougher time. Obama could potentially win Virginia (13 electoral votes), Missouri (11 electoral votes) and even Mississippi (whose population is 40% African American -- 6 electoral votes). He would be considerably more competitive than Clinton in other battleground states like Colorado (9 electoral votes), Iowa (7 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Minnesota (10 electoral votes) and Michigan (17 electoral votes). The same goes for New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) -- a state where McCain will work hard to woo independents among whom Obama did much better than Clinton in this year's primary.
4) Even in states where Clinton could make a case for some advantages relative to Obama, these "advantages" are far from certain. Take Florida where she might assert an advantage among Latinos. Florida also has up to 500,000 newly enfranchised ex-felons -- many of whom are African American. The problem with these new voters is mobilization, not persuasion. Getting them registered and voting will be hard. Obama would obviously turn out many more African American mobilizable voters than Clinton. And when it comes to Latino voters, Obama's clear record on immigration contrasts well with McCain who has thrown Latino immigration reform aspirations under the bus in order to pander to his party's right wing.
5) Obama has the one quality that allows him to simultaneously motivate mobilizable base voters and appeal to persuadable independents -- the ability to inspire. This quality allows him to broaden the appeal of his candidacy to swing voters. At the same time it allows him to expand the electorate with new young and African American voters who otherwise simply wouldn't vote. Clinton is the anti-inspiration candidate. She will have a much harder time both expanding the electorate and appealing to swing voters. Obama's ability to inspire -- by itself -- makes him a much stronger general election candidate.
6) Finally, let's remember that the base of the Republican Party -- cultural conservatives -- is not so wild about McCain. They are accepting McCain with about as much enthusiasm as children take cough medicine. They know they need him, but they really aren't happy about it. The one thing that could energize the Republican base is their inveterate hatred for Hillary Clinton. Clinton would mobilize right-wing base voters the same way that hatred for Bush motivated Democrats in 2006. Why should we help galvanize the Republican base by nominating Hillary Clinton when we have another great choice?
All of these factors are born out in the consistent survey results that show Obama polls six to ten points better than Clinton against John McCain.
Clinton will have a difficult to impossible time winning the pledged delegate battle. Her only path to the nomination is convincing Super Delegates that she is the most electable. That dog won't hunt.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the new book Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win. The book is available at Amazon.com.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Why is it that the Obamaniacs have no substance (or handle on English grammar) in their pleas for support?
'If Obama wins it is because he as (I thinks he/she means 'has' electrified an electorate who is tired of the status quo. This appeal lies on both sides of the aisle and has the greatest attracion among Independen
Barack has actually electrified a public who hate and fear women and they don't really have a complicated thought in their minds - look at the people on this blog - little education, less information and their only club is insults and irrational rage at Hillary as a woman
What do they know? That Barack's voting record is nearly identical to Hillary's - do they know that he was a corporate lawyer? do they know that he beat Alan Keyes for his Senate seat (like saying you defeated a cartoon character)? do his zombies realize this? Do they read? Probably not.
His supporters are an angry mob - insulting, vile people - I had a 'friend' yelling at me at dinner on Friday fairly spitting insults about Hillary. (With no new information about Barack - as usual).
For people who want to 'be the change', they are the sickest bunch I've ever come in contact with and why I will never vote for Barack.
mjc?, I am a New York State resident. I would like for you to google something in reference to your statement about Obama not winning in New York if he is the dem. nominee. It was in the papers here and have been/is online about the disenfrancise of numereous voters here, most who voted for Obama. Mayor Bloomberg is a fair and decent man and he is looking into this, and will not allow this to happen again. To say that Obama would not in win New York if he is the dem. nominee is nonsense. I and many others believe that
HE WOULD WIN!!!
I am disappointed that most of the pundits and even Obama's surrogates have not pointed out the illogic of the Clinton arguement on the "biG" states. Most all of her voters will go to Obama in the general election. The REVERSE maynot be true. Someone needs to address Clinton's strong negatives; what happened to this metric in the polls? If the Super dels really want to have someone head the ticket that can help increase the majority in the HOUSE and SENATE, it clearly is not Clinton in everyone of the states where she polled 40percent or less. Also, Who really believes in this so called "Dream" ticket. Now I know why I never became a Democrat. Bob Landis
How many Ohio voters were put off by the Obama-NAFTA-Canada lie just as they were going to the polls? How many people know the truth about that little set-to even now? The Clintons are masters of politics-as-usual and are succeeding in turning off thousands of voters who probably won't even show up for the general election. Talk about your party poopers ... How terribly, terribly sad.
I agree with the post sentiments however there is one MAJOR error. The African-American population of Mississippi is NOT 40% - in fact NO state in the United States of America has this high of a percentage of blacks nor comes close. What you perhaps meant to say is that "As per registered democrats totals their influence equal 40% by African-Am
From an article about Obama's Small State Strategy:
Axelrod and other Obama aides said they have learned their lesson from Tuesday. Rather than accept Pennsylvania as a tiebreaker, they will play down their chances there and keep the focus on states such as North Carolina and Indiana, where they think their chances are better.
Pennsylvania's primary will be followed by contests in West Virginia, Indiana and Kentucky, all of which have similar, lunch-pail demographics. If Clinton enters the summer on a roll, especially in the big states, the superdelegates may no longer feel that backing her would be opposing the will of the voters, an Obama supporter said.
"Superdelegates are politicians. They will not buck the will of the voters," said a superdelegate supporting Obama. "The danger point comes if the superdelegates don't see a vote for Clinton as bucking anyone."
http://www
Mr. Creamer, thanks for pointing out that Obama has what it takes to mobilize the felon vote in Florida. I heard he had the affluent, black, and youth votes, but it is good to know he also has the votes of drug dealers, rapists, and thieves. Truly the makings of a special social movement.
nik12: why should ex-felons who have done their time and paid their debt to society not be able to vote? These folks are most likely working and paying taxes. Ever hear of taxation w/o representation? Think before you blurt out knee-jerk nonsense. Then zip it.
To be absolutely clear, in States where ex-felons have the right to vote, denying them that right is wrong. I agree with you that taking away rights of citizens is terrible; this is actually my point. What I said was that I have never heard an argument before being made that one candidate was preferable to another because that candidate could pull in the ex-felon vote. Why: because ex-felons, by having egregiously violated the rights of others, have shown very bad judgment. Thus, once again, why does Mr. Creamer think it is positive to highlight that people with that kind of judgment will flock by the half-million to Obama.
In States where ex-felons can vote, by all means let them do so. But when someone asks: "Why is your candidate preferable?" Don't answer: "Well because he has the young vote, the affluent vote . . . the criminal vote."
I worked in the 2004 election in Florida for GOTV in a poor area of Orlando. It was obvious that Florida officials were trying to suppress the black vote by making it as hard as possible to register. And they were very successful at it. I particularly remember one old black man who had been in prison as a young man, served his time, and now wanted to register and vote. He had done all of the necessary paperwork to register under the law and still was getting the run around. He came to us for help a few days before the election. He was clearly entitled to vote under the law, but, in the end, never got to. As I say the Florida officials (remember purging the voter lists?) were very good at this. This would be one of your "drug dealers, rapists, and thieves".
I agree with your arguments partially, Mr Creamer. It was a mental math exercise that made me throw my vote behind Barack, not the weepy-eyed messianic fervor that motivates most Obamaniacs.
It's true that Barack does better in states that are swing states. Hillary does better in states that are going blue anyway no matter who's running (like California) and red states that will go red anyway no matter who's running (like Texas).
It's all moot, of course, because Hillary and Barack are spending like crazy and ripping each other apart. (And their supporters here forgetting the primary challengers are NOT the enemy are NOT helping) And McCain's happily picking up the pieces.
I have a strong feeling McCain's going to be our next president. That royally sucks.
Uh, exactly how is Obama "ripping" Hillary apart?
Ok here’s some numbers for you. If we look at recent history, as in what’s happening in the primary race, the count of the popular vote is extremely close. Without the inclusion of the Florida or Michigan popular vote the numbers are;
Obama 12,999,088
Hillary 12,410,650
The difference is only 588,438 out of more than 25 million votes, a virtual tie.
The numbers are a little bit closer with the addition of the Florida popular vote.
Obama 13,575,302
Hillary 13,281,636
Now the difference is even closer only 13,666 votes out of nearly 27 million votes. It makes sense for Hillary to stay in the race BECAUSE IT’S A VIRTUAL TIE! (1)
But that’s not all! The Obama campaign has won in states with a total of only 193 Electoral College votes. Hillary has taken states with a total of 263 Electoral College votes. (2)
This brings the decision that must be made by both candidates, do you want to win the nomination or do you want to win in November? It’s going to take a “deal” and
collaboration to win the election which matters, the general election in November. Let’s all stop pulling our hair our and even more importantly stop the G** D****d lying about one another. If we can’t do that, then we don’t deserve to win!
1. realclearp
2. Marie Cocco, realclearp
You are forgetting the timing of the Super Tuesday vote. Bunching up the big states for Super Tuesday favored Hillary Clinton and she was UNABLE to put Obama away. The length of the primaries has helped the rest of the nation become familiar with Barack Obama. That is an aspects that favors him in the general.
First of all HIlliary has won the Democratic Primary in those states, NOT A GENERAL ELECTION, big difference. What it seems you are basically arguing that is Obama should drop out so the Democrats in November. Nothing could be further from the truth!
And if anyone is lying, it is Clinton and her campaign. The NAFTA lie just before the TX and Ohio primaries is a perfect example, claiming your opponent is doing something that you are actually doing. Just ask the Canadian government who was telling the truth!
The latest one was claiming that both she and John McCain are more qualified than Obama to be commander in chief. What is she trying to do, help the republicans? Clinton has zero military experience and ONLY 7 years in the US Senate. In fact, that is the sum total of her experience as an elected official responsible to the voters. Obama has over 14 years experience as a state legislator and US Senator.
Unless you believe one can get "experience by absorption", First Lady doesn't count when it comes to qualifications for President. Clinton is constantly spouting the BS about her "35 years of experience" which is the biggest lie of all.
I am sick of Clinton and her campaign. With her win at all cost attitude, she alone will destroy the chances of winning in November and will help elect another war mongering republican as commander in chief. That's just what we need after 8 years of GWB!!!!!!
The decision to win the nomination at all costs, even if it means losing in November has obviously been made by Sen. Clinton.. She has been praising Sen. McCain's and her own experience. She says Sen. Obama has only a speech to bring to the presidency. Will she stand by that if Obama becomes the nominee? She is going to fracture the Democratic party. I wonder how long Gore and Edwards will stand by and watch this happen. She is the epitome of what's wrong with politics!
Que the Violins!
Hillary has been "harmed" by Obama's "disenfran
If you're a woman and are not voting for Hillary you're "self-hating" your gender; if you're a man and you're not voting for Hillary you're "sexist"; If you're young and not voting for Hillary you're "uninformed"; If you're African-American and aren't voting for Hillary you're "racist"; If you're a small (or red) state that didn't give Hillary the majority of the vote it's "irrelevant"; and finally if the rules infer that the "one", with the most "pledged delegates", most "popular votes", most "states won" should be declared, or receive the support of the DNC to achieve 2025, then you "change the rules - it's my party and I'll do what I want"!
She is ready on "Day One" to authorize an illegitimate war; ready to invite the representatives of "real Americans" to lobby her on our behalf; experienced enough to spin, triangulate and deflect criticism of bad behavior; smart enough to withhold tax and income statements from the voters . . . . . but I digress, back to the C-O-N-spiracy . . .
Not voting for Hillary is NOT AN OPTION! violins take a break . . . .
Obama wins Texas! Keep it going! Yes We Can!
http://www
WOW!... so I spent the last couple days misinformed, huh?
Texas went to Obama.
That's good news.
Clinton will say that this TX two-step is unfair, because she only won the primary, but lost the caucus. And maybe TX Dems should consider changing the system in the future, but we're talking March 2008 here. Clinton knew about this two-step system--or should have--beforehand. It's her job to know, just like it was her job to know that Bush was lying about diplomacy in Iraq when she voted to give him the war he asked for. If TX was her all-important "firewall," she had a responsibility to learn the rules and strategize appropriately, rather than complain about it after the fact. She simply dropped the ball in TX. She failed.
In the bigger picture, what does Clinton's failure say about her effectiveness and mastery of foreign policy, national security and the economy, when she can't even master a simple state campaign? Talk about "on-the-job" training vs. experience. Obama used his superior experience in TX to punch a big hole in Clinton's firewall.
I can find nothing in what you have posted, Mr. Creamer, that leads me to believe that Obama will be a more electable candidate. You dismiss California and New York as if they are nothing. They will not necessarily be a shoe-in for Obama. Obama will certainly not, that is NOT, take New York. You do think Ohio will be important, and you are right, and it will probably be one of the strongest for Hillary Clinton. And if Michigan does get some sort of do-over, it will go for Hillary. Florida's residents went very strongly for Clinton in the primary that didn't count and even with the former felons it is doubtful that Obama will get the number of votes that came to Hillary just in the primary. Think your prediction about Mississippi is quite optimistic for Obama, even if it is only 6 electoral college points. There are many blacks not registered in that state and those that are may not over-ride the votes of the women and working class folks who will go for Clinton. Cannot for the life figure out why you want to publish some of the "Obama is the only one electable" data you have. At least wait for Pennsylvania.
1) "..consist
2) Obama has so far won the national popular vote, even if you add in Fla and Mich; the most delegates overall, even if you add in the superdelegates; and the most states by a landslide. Clinton is simply not leading in any way by any possible criteria, and the remaining contests will not give her the landslides should would need to undo this.
3) Why are we still having this conversation?
Amen.
Indeed - because the "ability to inspire" is some quantitative element that will automatically bring the independents to Obama? You're right NY will NOT go for Obama; I replied here the other day that there are really only 3 solidly blue counties in NY and the rest have to be earned; He may get VT, but little else. And since when is Minnesota a "battleground" state? He can't win where it counts. He'll lose almost as bad as Mondale.
Kerrey won NY, CA MA, etc. If that decent but EXTREMELY boring man can do it, then yes Obama can. And when the anti-McCain 527s are through with him, McCains negatives will be higher than his positives. (You listening would-be 527's? If you build it, I will come. With some money.) This is still very do-able for the Dems if we stop with the vitriol.
You are insane if you think McCain will win NY state in a GE
Obama is dangerous. First he takes any health care plan of the table with his knock-off "Harry and Louise" flyer. Then, he puts his foot in his mouth with his "If Al Quida is in Iraq" comment. He admits to Tim Russert in the debate that he supported NAFTA one time in a speech he gave in Illinois to some farmers. He capitulates to Hillary in the debate over a silly question regarding Farakan when he Denounces and Rejects Farakan (Yes people, there is a difference between denouncing and rejecting - look it up). Then he whines about negative ads hitting him in the face when his own people should have been using similar ads against Hillary. Memo to Mr. Creamer: Obama will not be able to win any southern states. Remember Harold Ford in Tennessee? The same thing will happen to Obama in the south. Then what? It is back to Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Colorado and New Hampshire. This is not a popularity contest folks it is the Electorial College System. Remember that!
Hey Creamer--as to argument #2: No, like Ohio, FLORIDA is also a big battleground state, and last time I checked, despite the Obama campaign's efforts to keep disenfranchising Florida's voters, even to the extent of fighting allowing them a "re-do" primary (what are you AFRAID of?), Hillary won there too. Oh, and also last time I checked, the determinative battleground states of the last two presidential elections were, let me see . . . OH YEAH!!! I remember! . . . OHIO & FLORIDA! I guess that must have slipped your mind.
And sure--Obama has racked up a few more delegates by winning big in small states like Iowa and (presumably) Wyoming (this week). Do you really, in your wildest dreams, think Obama is going to win Iowa and Wyoming and Oklahoma and Kansas and Idaho and Arizona etc. etc etc. in the Fall General Election? He MAY have a chance in a few of the places he's won in the primaries, like maybe Oregon & Washington, but get real. Those states are so red, and they have so few electoral votes in the first place, that he'll be just as screwed as Kerry and Gore were come November.
Obama's best chance at winning in November is if he runs for Veep on Hillary's ticket. And even that's a stretch. She'd do much better with Edwards, if he'd be willing to go that route again. Edwards could actually HELP her in some of the red states maybe. Jim Webb or Wes Clark might be even better.
Obama supports a re-vote. He said the delegates should be seated. Just thought you might want to know before you repeat the contrary.
Even if Hillary won, they would most likely split the delegates, with only a few more in her favor.
I guess a nationwide popular vote would be too simple and democratic.
Obama did not "disenfranchise" anyone. The voters in Florida were disenfranchised, depending on your perspective, by either their state legislature which insisted on trying to jump to the front of the line (much like the illegal aliens that seem to love Hillary so much) or by the DNC, which established the rules of the campaigns. Hillary now wants to change the rules. You can bet that if Obama had won Florida, Hillary would be much less concerned about disenfranchisement.
This is typical Clinton behavior - one set of rules for the Clintons and their elitist friends and another set for everyone else. Hillary expected a coronation and is now acting like a spoiled, petulant child - again, typical Clinton behavior. She is the worst kind of feminist - the kind that rode on the coattails of her husband but believes she made it on her own.
FL and Michigan should hold elections again so Obama can put this to rest.
Thank you Mr. Creamer. I felt the "won big states" argument made no sense, especially because it's a primary race. You have articulated the reasons why very well.
I would like to respond to the people who responded to my post about Obama taking the VP.
First off, I'm not sure your math is right that she cannot come close enough to beat him. Keep in mind that Peurto Rico has 55 delegates. Also, Oregon and Kentucky are closed primaries. She can get close enough to win with the Super D's. If neither gets to 2025, that is the only way the rules allow for it being done. I would say at this point, that is a 50/50 shot. It' may tear us apart.
What I'm saying is, Obama could do something that is truly George Washington like and take that spot sooner rather than later. Because either way there is going to be friction. This is as close as a race can get, and Obama people act like the super d's should just vote for him because he has deleagates from a montana that outnumber the delegates where we need to win. That's NOT going to happen.
No matter how you slice it, both have a good claim for the nod, it's NOT just about these pledged delegates. There is going to be a split if we stay on this road.
The thing that makes the most sense if you really care about the progressive movement, and not just want you want in the short-term and the emotional investment you have made in this candidate, is for him to be the VP. He will be 50 when the first term is up. It is possible Clinton may not want to run for 2nd term. He will only be 54 when the 2nd term is up and look at how much respect he will have by doing this. Not only that, the country will be used to the idea as an AA as President after he serves as VP and there will not be the risk of a Bradley effect. This as Michael Corelone would say, is the smart play. That is if you really care about true, progressive change!
Change takes time, this could be a perfect recipe for keeping us in power for 16 years. You don't think that those Super D's are going to consider that fact? They should be doing that, and maybe it is a good thing they are there after all. Especially when you consider where Obama got his delegates, Montan, Idaho, Alaska etc. Not really hot bead of the progressive movement and not really going to do much to further our cause, not matter how much excitment there may be among the rabid minority of these areas - it just won't wash.
When it comes to this general election, winning is the only thing that needs to be though about. It is not so much what we can hope to do at this point, it is the fact that we must stop them from doing what they have been doing. Hillary Obama 08 and Obama - ? 2016 accomplish that goal better than anything we can hope for coming out of a divided Denver.
I respectuflly ask you to consider the wisdom of this.
If you are saying Hillary is progressive, I must debate that point. I will support her if she wins the nomination, but there is nothing progressive about her record.
Not only did she vote for the war, she voted against the Levin amendment.
She is not progressive, she is a right-leaning centrist with blood on her hands.
She said she didn't read the whole NIE. How can you vote on something so important, vote against using diplomatic relaitons, and not read the intelligance report? This will always be hard for me to overcome.
If she really beleived the intelligence, whoops, she didn't even read it all.
If she was thinking about her political future, then what decisions will she make in office to get re-elected.
If she thought he was going to use power as a last resort, then why vote against the Levin amendment?
There is no way around it, all who voted in such a irresponsible manner should be held accountable.
I know it isn't just her, too many politicians did the same.
Few read the whole NIE.
Even fewer persued the Bush adminstration for more answers to the lacking NIE.
Those few should be commended.
Forgive and forget is not a good way to elect a president.
SO PLEASE TELL ME -
How is this progressive?
Why Should Obama, who is still ahead, concede? (That's makes no sense anyway you slice it)
Why should she be trusted to read more intelligence reports as Pres when she didn't even do her job on the most important vote ever cast in her senate career?
Bush didn't read his reports- look at 9/11.
Please, any Hillary supporters, I would love to hear your input on this. I am struggling to understand.
This is my dilemma... I truely do care about the progressive movement..
I would be nauseously disappointed if Barak aligned himself with this Neo-Con mole.
I see nothing progressive in her "calculati
I care... and so therefore want Hillary to go back to representing the state that apparently likes her.
The problem I see with your analysis is this: Clinton lies, people see it - and those who do will not vote for her. In addition, with Obama ahead, why would he be inclined to drop down and take a VP spot with someone who has no honor or integrity? It would damage him to do that as he actually HAS honor and integrity.
I agree with you that, when it comes to this general election, winning is the only thing that needs to be thought about. For that reason, it is Clinton who needs to reevaluate her need for power vs the Democratic Party - because Obama consistently shows in the polls as winning against McCain...w
McCain/Clinton '08!
Loading comments…
Posted March 5, 2008 | 05:48 PM (EST)