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.
Loading comments…
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
Sage25 - it is Obama that is trying to steal the election. Obama is trying to win without the popular vote. The people have spoken and they voted for HRC. Obama is trying to steal the election.
How can he steal what he has won? Answer that???
Oh please live beyond Hillary, she is playing dirty and the sooner peolple realize the better we will be. I don't care if she is a Women, I am a women, and would love nothing better for a women to win, but now is not the time and she is not the women.
Clinton's "Big State" Myth: Why Barack Obama Remains the Most Electable Democrat This Fall
YA KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT ON....... LOL
Don't worry....we will...as well as the voters and delegates.
Archangel - it is Obama that is trying to steal the election. He is trying to win without the popular vote. That is stealing the election and going against the will of the people.
He has the popular vote, according to election officials, you know something that hasn't been released to the rest of us? Or just not into that whole counting thing?
"He is trying to win without the popular vote."
The problem with your argument is that Senator Obama HAS the popular vote, at least for now. Hillary Clinton has neither the popular vote nor the pledged delegate numbers, and though things can change, she is not waiting for that improbability. She wants to ensure now, not later, that the role of the super delegates will be to her benefit and not to the benefit or will of the electorate which is represented by popular votes and pledged delegates, and of which Senator Obama is presently winning.
Isn't that EXACTLY what George Bush did in year 2000?
Get a life, Obama doesn't steal, Hillary will do anything, say anthing to win.
Craig - you've said the same thing several times. It's still wrong.
Robert Creamer's analysis focuses on the obvious fact that I've been trying to point out every time a Hillary supporter brings it up: *any* Democrat will win New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and, yes, Illinois. No Democrat is going to win Arizona. Or Oklahoma or Tennessee.
But the "big state" argument is pointless. It's the thought process behind the argument that matters.
Hillary had to win Ohio and Texas by huge margins to get back in the race. She won by 10 and 4, respectively (if not respectfully). She did it with Republican-style fearmongering ads, the political exploitation of rumors about Obama's opposition to NAFTA (the Canadian government is now investigating who leaked the false information)-- by old style, identity-based politics.
Hillary went nuclear to win two states by 10 and 4 which she needed to win by 20 or 25.
So now-- Plan B (as opposed to the No Plan she had post-Super Tuesday because she arrogantly thought it would be over by then). Plan B is to come up with a lot of fancy rationale about winning "big states." Or saying she won Ohio, which every Democrat needs to do in order to be the nominee (except some guy named John F. Kennedy). Superdelegates are necessary to show that the truth about Obama is he just graduated from high school and can't even spell "Commander in Chief." The wisdom of politicians with life-long political (and financial?) connections to the Clintons should be the last word. Ri-ight.
It's Obama's year. Americans want change; they want a new kind of politics. Smearing him may have worked for two or three weeks. But when it's all over, except for Hillary's 25%-ers, America will see maybe we should have turned the page and tried something new, considering the current system *is* broken and needs to be fixed. If Obama weren't for real, his campaign would have been over in January. So Hillary destroying a fellow Democrat in order to gain a pyrrhic victory is what it is: dirty politics. It may work to win a nomination, but so did Bush's tactics against McCain in 2000.
The ends justify the mean(nes)s.
And so the pissed off progressive base will leave and vote in droves for Nader if Clinton continues to lie and steal the nomination. And you will end up with President McCain.
6 months ago I had resigned myself to the fact that I would probably be voting for hillary on November. I was fine with that.
At the present time, I refuse to ever vote for her again in my lifetime
exactly my setiment. There is no way I'd vote for someone that voted for this war. She knew what she was voting for in 03. She has terrible judgement and her greed for power has made her blind.
She really has gone to the dark side :-)
Me and my husband were also resigned to the fact. The problem now is that her negative assault has really turned us off to voting for her. I'll probably still do so. My husband, on the other hand, says he may vote for Nader or not at all. I'm afraid this will be the problem with many other Democrats that are turned off by Hillary Clinton.
nothing Hillary says holds up to scrutiny for one main reason:
She is one of the most calculating politicians of our time, right up there with Karl Rove.
It is all about her, and doing whatever it takes to win.
She is Nixon in a pantsuit.
And exactly what we don't need in this country
We must keep in mind that Hillary was president of the young college republicans and a Goldwater girl. She became a democrat when she married Bill in the late '70s. How far do you deviate from your roots. She can flip flop between the two parties' agenda with political calculated ease. What concerns me is the 'Many faces of Hillary" - crying, mocking, stamping her feet, victimization, etc. What do we have here? Who do we have here?
Don't forget clap, clap, point, point
Would that be like Obama being a community organizer to improve conditions for the downtrodden, while being Tony Rezko's (the slumlord and felon) good friend?
I think the best example of Hillary's political calculating and personal ambition was shown in Michigan where the other front-runners took their names off of the ballot to show support of the DNC's decision to not count their delegates for breaking the rules. The fact that Hillary left her name on the ballot, in my opinion, is a huge disrespect to the Democratic Party. Her personal ambition trumps her party loyalty.
Somebody needs to sit the Obama supporters down and explain to them that having a lead in the pledged delegates, but losing the popular vote doesn't mean that the superdelegates should vote for you.
That is what is happening. HRC will have the popular vote and Obama will have a slight lead in pledged delegates. The people have spoken and they have voted for HRC. She will get the superdelegates because she will have the popular vote.
HuffPo wants to ditsort this fact so that it seems like HRC is trying to "steal" the election. It is Obama who istrying to steal the election because he is trying to win without the popular vote.
It's the Bush stategy. And unfortunately, when the media plays along, it works.
And we can clearly see that the media has been tilting this thing Obama's way since Iowa.
Obama is too straight forward to handle the Republicons - Hillary's team may be able to come up with a bag of tricks to battle them in the FALL.
Also, Howard Dean should resign after his decision to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters - how bone-headed is that!!
there have the rules about when states can hold their primaries, or else they will keep pushing it back earlier until we are voting 2 years ahead of the election.
The party leaders in that state knew the rules. It is their fault that the delegates might not get seated.
there is no way hillary wins the general election. There are soooooo many republicans and idependents and now democrats that hate her that will mobilize all of them to vote against her.
Voters in FL and MI knew their votes didn't count! I wouldn't call it disenfranchisement. Howard Dean is handling this perfectly - the states committees knew the rules and knew they broke the rules. They could have rescheduled at any time prior to their "elections", but they didn't. Now he's leaving it up to them to right their own mistakes, which is more than he probably should do.
O Ye champion of the poor, picked on Hillary.......Obama has the popular vote as well as the pledged delegates.....ergo election commnader and thief....Shrillary!
Obama's ahead in the popular vote for several hundred thousand, I believe by more than Al Gore was in the 2000 election.
Gore won by over 600,000 in the popular vote in 2000. I am not sure Obama is ahead that far at the moment.
Somebody needs to explain to you that your facts are wrong. Obama currently leads in delegates AND the popular vote.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87931972
Dartagnan - An important iten to deal with is also that John McCain is just not electable. He does not debate well. His age is going to be a concern for some people. Because he needs to placate the far right of the party, McCain will likely choose someone as his VP that will turn off any independent voters.
Take Huckaby - 2 giant reasons that independents will run away from him are:
#1 - Evolution is not "just a fancy idea from the far left"
#2 - his idea of getting rid of the federal tax and increasing the sales tax on everything by 30% is just mind-numbingly insane. Not only would this never work, it would absolutely crush the middle class and they happen to be the largest group of consumers and largest bloc of independent voters.
McCain will kiss-up to the right to keep them voting for him and this will push away independents. HRC or Obama is extremely likely to beat McCain. HRC would put Obama on the ticket, but would BO do the same?
Let's hope he won't. Obama needs a candidate with real foreign policy experience.
Maybe Bill Richarson, and Edwards for Attorney General. That is one thing I like about Obama, he won't allow friends, he will allow people that can handle things, I guarantee that.
He will apoint the best of the best, look at his campaign, no flaws, no financial problems, he has run won of the most organized campaings ever, all the compliments of the prior Clinton Administration. Thank you Clintons, when you started hireing Repuclican people we have a problem...
Well, I'll agree that he needs someone with real foreign policy experience.... When Obama deferred to Hillary during the last debate when Russert asked about Russia's new president, one might reasonably infer that he would have been unable to say Medvedev's name. That's just a guess, but EVEN Russert stated that he intentionally did not direct the question to either candidate.
I believe in the fair tax, but you have to abolish the income tax, but you have to give healthcare before I would allow it. I would rather pay 30% tax on goods, than take imcome tax. I think that is where , you are confused, they can't have both, it is one or the other. Thats what they do in europe, they get 40% tax on your income, but you don't pay tax on any goods, and medical insurance is fee, no matter what is wrong with you...
Parts of Europe pay a Value added tax, which is a sales tax, effectively. They have much higher taxes and things cost more there. However they have great services, great medical care which is free, a better standard of living, and a longer life expectancy.
In the US we die earlier, have crappier health care, which is a lot more expensive, a lower standard of living, longer working hours, and at the moment a government which is hostile to the individual while very friendly to the corporate interests.
I have in the last 10 years lived in 5 countries. The US, Canada, UK, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Give me the family friendly,better life on Europe and Canada any time. The US is turning into a country run for the benifit of corporate interests with faith in the trickle down effect, the belief that when the corporat interests have enough money they will let the excess trickle down to the workers. It hasn't happened yet. Income for the average American is down significantly since Bushie and his friends have taken over. Medical costs are up and every year more and more Americans are uninsured.
Wow, is this your best argument?
What you, and the rest of the Obamabots, fail to realize is that her "big state" victories are not just about winning those states in November. Yes, CA and NY will be blue no matter what. But the argument is more complicated than that.
You see, big states like NY, CA, OH and TX involved primaries that were contested in conditions most similar to a general election. In November, everyone votes on the same day, and they vote in primaries. You don't have quirky caucuses every few weeks where Obama can send his legions to sway things.
So you see, it is the nature of those contests that is significant. In a big primary with lots of people voting on the same day, Barack can't close the deal in a big state. Hillary can and has.
You say that only BO can enlarge the electorate and turn out the youth vote... so why did he lose in CA, MA, OH and TX? Looks like he didn't get so many to "turn out" after all. And the youth vote continues to be the smallest voting bloc in every primary.
Which brings me to FL. Your argument that Hillary's only advantage there is with latinos, is laughable. What about older voters? In a McCain vs Obama fight, McCain owns the older voters (who dominate FL). In Hillary v McCain, she can make a claim against them.
Don't forget that the majority of those older voters are women (yes, women do live longer than men), another advantage for Hillary.
OH told us they want a tough and serious candidate. PA and MI will want the same. Again, an edge for Hillary.
Look, Obama has a delegate lead because of the strange caucus system exaggerating his wins in small states. If the Dem primary was winner take all, Hillary would have a nice lead right now without FL counted. If you count FL, Hillary would be the nominee.
Yes SHE Can
Hillary, with everything she had going for her, can't even beat an unknown black candidate in the primary election. If she can't win with the delegate count, she doesn't deserve to be the nominee. Spin it all you like, Heidfeld, but that's the truth. We're not going to start changing the rules to benefit her.
Maybe she could if it were an even playing field. Clearly she is doing great considering how much is going against her. If Obama didn't have the media wind at his back, he would not have made a blip on the radar.
You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. If he has more pledged delegates, it does NOT automatically make him the nominee... unless you change the rules. Which you said we shouldn't. Sooooo...
The superdelegates have to come into play. And they wont ignore his inability to deliver in a big contest. Can't win in big blue states, can't win in big red states, can't win in big swing states, so how is he gonna with the United States?
So you have this strange caucus system, how many elections, presidential elections has Hillary been involved in? Her supporters act as if they didn't know the numbers, is if the system is new. Was she campaigning as a Republican with winner take all, no, she's been involved in national campaigns. They were arrogant, thinking that they'd win the big states, Super Tuesday and then that would be it, win them by such a huge margin, they'd be so far ahead, they'd lock up the nomination. Bush won in 2000 by running a really nasty campaign against McCain, is that what we want, someone who can only win by going negative?
Obama didn't lose Texas. That's a myth. Obama, not Hillary has won Texas!
I was a Precinct convention chair (caucus leader) the other night. Everything went smooth for us because I had done my homework.
In my precinct, Clinton got 50 (or 29%) out of 168 votes. Obama got the other 118 (or 70%.) We had been given 18 delegates to the Tarrant County (Fort Worth) convention on March 29th. Hillary got 5 delegates, Obama 13.
Statewide, the counting still goes on for the caucus results but as of this morning (Thursday) Obama was ahead by 55% to 45% for Hillary. Almost everyone expects this 55%-45% margin to hold. The caucus votes count for 1/3 of the total Texas delegates awarded to candidates. Hillary "won" the primary vote (which counts for the other 2/3 of the total Texas delegates awarded to candidates) by 50% to Obama's 47% and got 65 delegates to Obama's 61 delegates. However when the caucus delegates are added to the Texas total Obama will come out with more delegates than Hillary. Thus Obama wins Texas, not Hillary.
David Perkins in Fort Worth
You must have been the only one.
As for caucuses, I find it abhorrent that 20 people can be considered representative of the people, 20 here, 20 there....it is just plain stupid. Especially since you have already had a primary.
Ok? So every major news source (including Huff Po), as well as the general consensus, has declared Hillary the winner of TX. But you say no? Ok, sure.
Is this his best response? To try and steal a win from her?
She won a fair primary in Texas. You know, the type of election they hold in November when it really counts?
He may get some votes out of yet another convoluted caucus process, but SHE WON THE PRIMARY which is what really counts. Thinking people can understand that although he may get extra delegates, that does not make him a winner.
Please move on to your next weak argument. Once again, logic and facts are on Hillary's side. And I used to remember when that was enough to convince most democrats, but the salesman seems to have taken that away from us.
Yes SHE Can
"You say that only BO can enlarge the electorate and turn out the youth vote... so why did he lose in CA, MA, OH and TX?"
Because he was too busy winning huge in other states while Hillary pulled off single-digit victories in a bunch of blue states?
Of all of the primary season contests, Hillary has won ONE contest with 60% of the vote or more (Arkansas).
Barack Obama has won THIRTEEN contests by 60% or more. And yes, before you get silly about "primaries are more meaningful than caucuses", many of those were primaries.
If the reason for Obama's higher delegate count was because of caucuses, then why is he still way ahead in the popular vote? Why is the disparity between delegate allocation and the popular vote percentages only 1.6%? Wouldn't the fact that caucus states, with their much lower turnout, being Obama's base mean that all of Hillary's wins in giant primary states like NY and CA, with their huge turnouts, would give her a lead in the popular vote? Wouldn't there at least be a gaping disparity between them?
There isn't, because your argument is wrong.
NO SHE WON'T
Obama's words don't inspire voters to vote for him. Hillary's gender inspires them to vote for him.
You are here to provide cover. Good job.
Why didn't Hillary's gender inspire us to vote for Biden or Edwards? I'm not sure how Obama managed to control gender bias in his favor, but that would be quite an accomplishment. What's your theory, AT, voodoo?
It's the culmination of white guilt and misogyny. Clearly a powerful combination. And in media infatuation and election medling and it is a perfect gender/race storm.
Thank god for super delegates.
This "people support Obama because they hate women" whine is getting pretty damn old and tired, don'tcha think?
I am woman, hear me roar.......I DON'T LIKE HILLARY!!!!!!
I am a woman and have always preferred my own sex, which is one of the many reasons I prefer Obama to Clinton. She is symbolic of the patriarchy and its archaic and violent ways of "doing things". He is symbolic of a new, more cooperative method of achieving results.
I am a white male and have no objection at all to a woman in the top job (its not as if all the men have been such an enormous success is it ?!) Problem is you have to pick which woman - and you should learn from the (bad) example set by the UK. As one prominent female* journalist said just before 'she' was elected - "Oh God - if you love women at all - DON"T LET HER WIN" . Unfortunately he did, and we had to put up with a strident, right wing warmonger for 10+ years. She* was right - no other woman has any chance of becoming PM in the UK for many years to come !
When political leaders resort to scare tactics, they should always be avoided. That's just a blatant attempt to get power - and if that's all its about, then they don't deserve it and may well be dangerous. Surely by now both our countries - and much of the world - is sick of politicians who use scare tactics to intimidate their own populations into allowing them far too much power ? Almost every dictator in recent centuries has started off by conning their own populations in this way and ended up as appalling leaders.
America has a chance to elect someone who is a uniter - someone who's looking for a better world and a reduction in divisions between people.
I just hope you take that chance as America still has enormous influence in what happens elsewhere.
Robert Creamer begins with an untrue, certainly an unprovable assertion: "The Clinton Campaign's post March 4th message is to forget about the delegate count and nominate Hillary..." and then asserts: "That argument simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny."
Of course it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In elementary logic, they call it a strawman argument. Shame on you.
"In elementary logic, they call it a strawman argument."
Oh wise one, please bestow upon us your great wisdom which contradicts all of the well-detailed and reasoned arguments that Robert Creamer just made. Your three sentences are not enough for us elementary thinkers to understand!
Always glad to help, but in point of fact, my "wisdom" here is limited to what they call "common knowledge" or at least what OUGHT to be common knowledge among educated citizens of a democratically inclined republic.
The claim that the Clinton campaign WANTS you to forget about the delegate count is preposterous on its face. The only way you could verify such a claim is by reading the mind of the "campaign" and/or Hillary Clinton. Inducing even a handful of people to FORGET something that is as UNFORGETTABLE as an elephant in the living room would be extremely difficult. My best guess is that the Clinton campaign has spent really very little time on the forgetting strategy.
Any claim or claims based on that supposed "strategy" is/are, on its face, EMPTY. Not true, not false, just EMPTY. "That dog won't hunt?" What dog is that? you may rightly ask. The Clinton campaign most certainly does not have a dog in the hunt described by Robert Creamer.
No matter how "well-detailed and reasoned" any argument made against an empty vessel may be, it's logical nonsense. A "strawman argument" is an argument made against a position that no sane person holds. They're usually very easy to disprove because, or at least coincidentally, no one holds the position.
This is what happens when we allow politicians to make the rules. What ever happened to one man one vote? These elaborate concoctions for electing delegates and the nominee were created in some backroom to satisfy the party bosses and that has led to the current inability of the Democrats to have a clear frontrunner. So Florida and Michigan's votes don't count; Texans get to vote and then caucus, at convention time the super-delegates are pretty much left to vote for anyone they choose even going against the candidate who won the most popular votes. This is a recipe for disaster as we go in to the convention. Meanwhile the Republicans will put up one candidate and one show of unity and strength leaving the Democrats to look like a group of kindergartners fighting in the sandbox.
Two more "BIG STATES," Michigan and Florida are getting ready to bite the Obamaniacs right in the butt.
Given the chance to campaign, I'm sure Obama will do well. But even with victories in FL and MI, Hillary still won't have the delegates.
Neither would Obama.
Thank you for the clarity. I am amazed by the obfuscation coming from the msm and huffpo surrounding these very weak Clinton campaign talking points.
Sorry - Obama does NOT win Michigan, Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania or probably New Mexico. McCain is competitive in CA wih Obama as the nominee. MO was a tie, so I thin Hillary could take it (since she won most of the counties there). Virginia is going to elect a Democratic senator (Mark Warner), so the Dems will be out regardless.
A big state argument is much more impressive than the argument that you won Utah and North Dakota.
So you think that McCain is "competitive" in California, but Hillary would win easily in Virginia? Where over 65% of the primary vote went to Barack Obama?
And why does Hillary have an edge in Missouri even though she lost the popular vote in the primary there? Because she won more counties? Since when did counties count for more than votes in the general election?
And how does Obama not win New Mexico or Pennsylvania? How can John Kerry beat George Bush in Pennsylvania in 2004 (by more that 5%, by the way), while Barack Obama can't win in 2008 with the Democrats surging nationwide?
C'mon, bub. You can do better than this argument.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
