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.

Comments

[HypocrisyAlarm]

Thus far, the only question the primaries and caucuses have answered is "Which Democratic can win oer the other Democrats in the field?" That Clinton bests Obama in Ohio (and other large states) is irrelevant to the general election. One candidate can win a state by double-digits in the primaries and still lose the same state by double-digits in the general.

Where Clinton has won, the margins of victory were unimpressive; Obama, on the other hand, has had a number of victories with spreads of ten points or more. That says a lot to me.

[LBKN]

Her entire premise should be s source of 'push-back' from Howard Dean... since he has been attempting to implement his 50 state strategy.

She can't seem to make adjustments for... or embrace... the advantages unrealized if we 'change' the way politics works...

125 million years ago... another group refused to change the way they did things... extinctually comfortable in the habits they had formed...

Hillasepha­lasaurus..­.

[Fabienne]

The Clintonistas did their best to keep Howard Dean from getting the chairmanship of the DNC, buut didn't managed to succeed.

[oncesung]

I have a question. Why does someone's vote in a "big" state mean more to the HillBillies than a vote from me just because I chose to live in a "small" state. Am I a "small American"? Am I not as valid as a "big American"? Should all of us small-Americans move to Big America in order to count as bona fide voters in this and future elections? What is WRONG with the Clintons?? And, btw, what size is Arkansas?

[AxelDC]

Her "big state" theory is just a bad campaign strategy. She doesn't seem to understand the Democratic Primary system, which is shocking since her husband won it twice.

In the general election, her victory on Tuesday would have been huge. Winning Texas (34), Ohio (21) and Rhode Island (4) to his Vermont would have given her a 59-4 advantage. It would have worked if she were a Republican, too.

However, her narrow victory is Texas was offset by her loss in the Texas Caucus. Her 54% in Ohio was much smaller than his margin in states like Illinois, Georgia or Virginia. He had a net gain of 9 delegates in the District of Columbia, so that DC was a bigger win for him that her winning Texas.

She is also atrociously bad at caucuses, another shocking development given the Clinton domination of the Party since 1992. She discounted the caucuses and it has costs her hundreds of delegates. In the general election, all those Rocky Mountain and Prairie states add up to more California, even if individually they are tiny prizes.

All this leads me to question her ability at strategic planning. We all know she is good at complaining and getting headlines. She seems to be particularly bad at budgeting, understanding complicated rules and finding a path to victory, all terrible omens for the heir to Bush's Iraq and economy.

She has done an excellent job of winning headlines and getting narrow victories in marquee states. He has done a better job of racking up huge wins in states and collecting delegates so well, that even when she wins, she really loses. The big story from Tuesday wasn't that she won, but that she lost 1/3 of her chance to make up ground. For her, it's not about winning, but catching up, and she can't afford to get less than 65% in Pennsylvania to hope to be the nominee.

[personalpolitical]

Good post, I recently had a similar breakdown, state by state, and yes, she is trying to deceive voters, as usual, turns out Obama does much better in "her states":

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/28045053

[klondiker]

Um, in Florida, Hillary - without even campaigning - received about 200,000 more votes than the Republican winner (John McCain) who had been actively campaigning there.

She has also won practically all of the South West - which is where the battleground states will be, owing to the high Latino populations. If she can win Florida and Ohio, which she has already shown that she is very capable of, and be competitive in the South West, she can take the election easily.

Also, I refuse to buy this myth of Obama expanding the electorate. Hillary has done the same. If you look at the popular vote totals, she is very close to Obama. In some counts (such as the one done by ABC News), she is even ahead. So, yes, while the electorate has expanded, many of the new voters are voting for Hillary, as well.

Finally, you can spin it whichever way you want, but big states matter. In the general election, there are no caucuses. I will admit that Obama does very well in caucuses. But to win in the general, you need to be able to get people out to vote in big primaries. Getting a small group of very enthusiastic supporters does not cut it.

[JasonEverettMiller]

This isn't even close to the reality of the situation. First off, Hillary hasn't had any crushing victories this primary season except for Arkansas. So, she is hardly the master campaigner, knocking the ball out of the park in all the big states. Why do you think Barack is ahead in delegates?

Second, the "big state" strategy will lose in the general against McCain, especially with Hillary as the candidate, for all the reasons noted above. Democrats must compete in the middle of the country to gain a governing majority and not just squeak through with 51% from all the big and swing states.

That may win elections, but it doesn't lead to change. It leads to gridlock.

Look, we understand that you like your candidate, but you don't have tear ours down and canonize your own to compete for votes. Further, if we realistically want to beat McCain in November we must field the candidate who can not only beat him soundly, but crush him nationally.

Given the turnout numbers and Barack's performance in the "little" states, he is the only democrat who can deliver a governing majority and a true mandate for progressive change. In this single area, your candidate simply can't deliver and that is the most important result from this election - not just a win but an overwhelming win of epic proportions. That is what it will take to solve all of our enormous problems.

A numerical victory that leads to the status quo is not enough this year. We need a governing majority made up of a motivated electorate that puts the fire to the feet of Congress, all of us getting behind a progressive president who can rebuild our standing in the world and move forward a transformation agenda at home.

The stakes are too high and getting a bare majority of 51% and a divided congress does not cut it. Not this year.

[dartagnan]

Well said, Jason. Either Democratic candidate should be able to beat McBomb, but this year Democrats should be trying to win an overwhelming mandate, not eke out a narrow victory. After the calamitous Smirky McChimp administration we have an opportunity to set the right-wingers back 20 years, if we don't blow it.

[Repubnomore]

The Latino voters will swing Democratic either way. Mc Cain's lack of support for reasonable immigration reform will eliminate any chance he has of winning Latino support.

More than anything else, the white, male, moderate voters in battleground states will determine their outcome. This is not a demographic that favors HRC.

It's time to face reality; Obama has a much better shot in the general election. He appeals beyond the traditional Democratic base. Hillary does not.

[indyhoosier]

In regards to Clinton mobilizing the right wing because of their deep hatred for her, these same people have deep hatred of black people and will be equally mobilized to vote against Obama. So that issue is a wash.

[jpshotwheels]

However, Obama is winning over alot of Republicans, not Neo-Cons, real Republicans, so I would beg to argue with you on that one.

[JasonEverettMiller]

Hatred of Hillary gets people to the polls - hatred of Barack keeps them home.

[Repubnomore]

Unfortunately, you are correct. Racism is still rampant in RURAL America (ironically). This isn't the case in urban and suburban America. In fact, the larger voter turnout of African Americans (which only Obama can deliver) and Latinos (which Mc Cain can't deliver) will far exceed the redneck vote.

[dawlishgal]

My former precinct in rural MN went for Obama.

[terraprieto]

Hillary has been vetted and HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE UNACCEPTABLE to 45% of the electorate, who won't vote for her under any circumstances. If the Democrats want to win, they have to nominate Anybody But Hillary. That's been true since she announced her candidacy, and it's true now.

Hillary was given the choice to go out classy or ugly, and she chose ugly (no surprise). She might get an ugly win of the Democratic nomination, but it will inevitably lead to a big loss in the fall.

Hillary won't be able to pretend that 'Ohio is the new Iowa' when she's up against McCain.

[personalpolitical]

The last survey I saw said 50%, and I've never seen one lower than 48% hating her :P

[LBKN]

79% of my body has an unpleasant physical reaction to her.... not even allowing for my mind deceiving me with rationality.... :0

... funny thing... this is nothing new.

I have 'not' liked her since her original reaction to scrutiny... when she haughtily protected her self-conceived right to secrecy as first lady. As I recall... this was in the first months of Bills first term.

At the time, my reaction was... "Hey, get a clue! You are "First Family! Your concept of what is due you in privacy should have been resolved well before you actually gained "First Residence".

There is nothing new in her "Politics of Poor Victim".

[jpshotwheels]

Hillary is saying Pennsylvania is the new Iowa, not Ohio.

[dawlishgal]

HA! She is grasping at any straw, and bursting her little Rovian brain to come up with more fear and more dirt. And then she accuses those who are beginning to think that even McCain might be better of being poor sports.

Those Clintons are something else...too bad we didn't pay more attention while they were still in office. It was just that the conservatives who were trying to bring them down were behaving even worse. Take a look at their presidency through the prism of how they behaving now. I did, and I am ashamed of wasting my time and energy on supporting them then. And I feel soiled and duped for not paying attention to the crap that they were up to then (like NAFTA).

Will we ever get a president who isn't some kind of narcissistic creep? We haven't had one for a damn long time.

[jaschrod]

I was a life long Republican, switched to Independent because of the Bush administration. I personally will not vote for Hillary, she offers nothing but the same old politics of the past. I for one am sick of it.

[Davat]

When all is said and done, if HRC has won all of the key battleground states including Florida and Michigan, and she has a lead in the overall popular vote, she can and will make the case for superdelegates to vote for her. They, more than anyone, understand the significance of winning Ohio in the fall. She will win against McCain and Obama will lose Ohio. By winning the overall popular vote, the message of "let the people decide" will be hers. The caucus states won by Obama will hurt his overall popular vote totals. Just look at the percentage differences in Washington State as an example. When it was a caucus, the voting % was Obama 68-31, but when all of the people decided, it was Obama 51-46. His delegate advantage argument will be trumped by HRC using the "will of the people" argument. If she doesn't lead in popular vote, the nomination belongs to Obama.

[Plank]

I wish people would stop saying She won Michigan. Nobody else's name was on the ballot.

[ClevelandTom]

The chances of Clinton taking the lead in vote count is almost as slim as her winning more pledged delegates than Obama. Obama has a 500,000-plus lead in that regard. (Ignoring FL and MI. How can they rationally be included?) Given the relatively small states other than PA yet to have primaries, Clinton would have to have landslides in most of them, and given the polls and past voting patterns, that won't happen.

[dawlishgal]

She must know that , but she is willing to destroy Obama's chances. How Clintonesque of her.

[Aaror]

So if Clinton continues to be behind Obama in the popular vote after PA, you think she should drop out, even if she wins all the states still up for grabs? You say the popular vote is the issue, well, he is winning that by a big margin. So the superdelagates should vote with the popular vote and get this over with.

[LBKN]

If you are advocating the idea that Obama "can't" win in these states against McThusela... you insult yourself... in the belief that I am equally intellectually shallow.

A wise person allows that there is always someone smarter than themselves. Don't assume that I am doltish enough to believe that Hill's "primary" victories are a reflection on the general election.

[Repubnomore]

If you look at this objectively, one statistic should be utterly apparent to everyone. More voters turned out to vote in DEMOCRATIC primaries and caucuses than EVER before. Why is that?

Dissatisfaction with Bush and the GOP! HRC appeals to the base voter. Obama brings in the youth, the African Americans, and the moderates who would normally vote Republican. This is what it takes to win the general election.

Why doesn't anyone remember that Bill Clinton ONLY pulled the base vote in 1992? Bush I and Perot split the other 64%!

Mc Cain can't take Ohio or Florida if the economy and the perpetual negative impact the war is having on it is emphasized.

[dawlishgal]

Does anybody seriously think that the youth will hang around and vote for Hillary? Every older Democrat I know but one is so fed up with the Clintons that they are questioning the value of supporting her at all. Many will show up for the congressional votes, but leave the presidential choice blank. . Obama is the one that will have coattails...bring people to the polls who will also vote for congressional Democrats.

If Hillary gets the nomination, almost everybody I know will take no pleasure in voting for her,if indeed they do vote for. She has run a filthy , disgusting, racially-biased and fear-mongering campaign and she is arrogant and dismissive of everybody who opposes her policies...witness the way she send to twits here to whine about "haters" and "cultists."

. She gets away with it because her supporters are oblivious about and vulnerable to the most simple-minded of propaganda techniques. If she wins the nomination, it will be with the dumb-lazy people vote. Let's hope that there aren't that many of those.

[dartagnan]

Very astute. The Democratic base will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. Obama can bring in voters outside the base, whereas Hillary can only bring in the base. Ergo, Obama can bring in more votes in November. Pretty simple and obvious, isn't it?

[bellecloche]

Thanks for this post. As a voter in a "big state," I don't like the constant argument about which states are more "important" than others. One does have to create strategic campaigning priorities (especially if one has limited funds), but the traditional Democratic view expressed in Clinton's "Let's get real" and "We'll never going to carry Alaska, Idaho, it's just not going to happen," embodies exactly the sort of brow-beaten hopelessness that has kept our party down for so long. WHY can't the Democrats one day sweep 49 states like Reagan did in 1984? Is there a law against it? Are Americans naturally born with anti-Democratic tendencies that must be battled from birth? No. The polls verify that Obama has indeed been attracting Republicans and Independents alike, and I myself have stood jaw-dropped as many Bush-voting Republican friends and family profess their support for him. I don't know a single Republican who is voting for Clinton - however unfortunate that may be, it's true and it's the answer to "Let's get real."

[ilcapo]

I see a lot of Clintonistas here trying to argue that latinos won t automatically vote for Obama because he s African-American so Hillary should be our candidate to hang on to California for example,that s nonsense,as a latino living in California,most of my family and friends voted for Clinton in the primary because of fond memories of the 90 s economic boon but have stated that under no circumstances would they vote for McCain,not because they hate him but because his party uses latino immigrants as scapegoats for all of America s ills.Everyone I ask say they ll support the Democratic candidate whomever it is including(­GASP!)Obam­a...OBAMA 08

[gallo146]

i am a latino for OBAMA

[Macready]

brilliant analysis . . . thank you . .. so true and the same holds for lots of us Dems "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."

Obama is the only candidate who can beat mccrazy . . . . let us also not forget hillary's experience comments about mccrazy, her 3am ad . .. and the fact the both she and bill have supported lieberman . . . .the sooner shrill hill is out of the race the better . . .

[jaschrod]

You are absolutely correct, it baffles me why people do not understand this.

[anons]

Don't you feel, democrats, that Hillary has tethered herself to a very specific rhetoric?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, CLINTON V MCCAIN puts McCAin squarely in the broad appeal, post two party candidate position and Hillary will begin to slide into what she has always been, the ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE.

[CoolDula]

For political reasons, I cannot write a comment. =)

[busybeez]

Great article! One other point: While Hillary is throwing all her focus and resources to win the large states, Barack is building a strong grassroots in every state. We are organized, fired up and ready to really go to work for the general election. The Clintons see the general campaign as it was in the 90's, but with Obama's grassroots organization, the map has changed. McCain cannot compete with Obama's grassroots organization nor the donation base that Obama has built up. That is why Obama is more prepared for the general election than Clinton.

[wakeupeverybody]

busybeez, I agree with you and Mr. Creamer, my question is how do we get a copy of this to the Obama campaign office. He could really use a little healing right now, but he is strong and as his name says "truly blessed". A little outside advice is always good for the soul though.

[BlogAngel]

Are you kidding? 50 states is a good plan if you win all 50 states. 50 states without the key states is called LOSING THE ELECTION.

Anyone who thinks CA, with a superstar Republican governor who is strongly backing McCain is safe is out in political left field. NY has a parallel situation. if Bloomberg goes for McCain that state could be in play. Hillary crunched Obama in MA despite both Kerry and Kennedy pumping their backers to join the Church of Obama. At least Creamer ALMOST concedes that Ohio was an important state for Hillary to win then he still tries to figure some way Obama would really, really win it if he tried.

Why does everyone trivialize Florida? Remember hanging chads? This is THE state for '08 and it's 100% Hillary Country. There's no way Obama could win that state, which is older, mostly women, HIspanics, with health and the economy as their big issues. Hillary beat Obama by a mile in that primary. We darn well better not dis Florida voters by cutting their delegates.

Creamer tries to make his points with conjecture - Obama could really win if he gives a really good speech and all the stars align. The FACT is Hillary DID win, even with Obama outspending her 4 to 1 and after his 11 state run. Why is everyone so loathe to admit this woman is POPULAR?! She's a great campaigner! Women are extremely excited that we could be represented in the White House for the first time in 232 years! (Women are 51% of the population compared to 14% Blacks and 53% of Blacks are women).

This old line about Hillary turning out the Republican base is a fairy tale. It's never happened, there's no proof it would happen, and there's just as much reason to believe those super-conservatives would rush to the polls to defeat a Black man. Both Hillary and Obama have defied stereotypes and they both deserve huge credit. The radical right hates McCain even more than Hillary - ask Ann Coulter! McCain has a perfect argument against Obama's complete inexperience. If the 3AM ad worked for Hillary v. Obama, it will turn McCain into a president. Hillary knows McCain, knows his flaws and weaknesses. Only Hillary can beat beat McCain because only Hillary can win those key states, Mr. Creamer . Obama would be a great VP.

[truesoccermom]

You say that Hillary is "popular" -- only among her base. She has the highest negatives of any candidate which will only increase in the general election. Why do you think the Republicans are calling her candidacy the "miracle" that can unite their party (against her). The Democrats would commit suicide by nominating her -- especially if they do it in spite of Obama winning the most pledged delegates. Then, even Dem.s like me will have a hard time voting for her.