Barrack Obama's camp prematurely tried to call the race after their caucus wins. Many Democrats have found this tactic offensive. The reality is because of this tactic HIllary probably will pick up more Obama voters than Obama will pick up HIllary voters.
Barrack Obama had a 2% lead in the popular vote (not counting Michigan and Florida, in which case its almost a tie), yet Obama had a 7% lead in the delegate count. Rather than just be grateful for the support Obama tried to hammer this lead down all democrats throats by feeding the media the line that "Hillary can't win". On top of that, Obama used the mini-me delegates from the caucus states that require 88% fewer voters per delegate selected to try and get the media to get Hillary to quit.
The reality is Hillary has the Latino vote, the mature women's vote, and would have and probably still could have the black vote as well. Hillary would probably still gets votes among all men as well. Hillary's growing lead in the electoral college vote is not a mirage, it's a coming attraction of this falls presidential election.
Clinton Rationale for Electability Doesn't Hold Water: History Proves the Ability to Win a State Primary Is Unrelated to General Election Success
Buzz this article up.
The Clinton campaign's only remaining argument for her superior "electability" rests on the contention that her ability to win primaries in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania makes her more "electable" in the general election.
There are many reasons why this argument is fallacious, including the fact that, in the general election, Obama would place many marginal states into play that Hillary would have no chance to win.
But the argument is erroneous, chiefly because a candidate's ability to win a state primary has virtually nothing to do with his or her ability to win the state in a general election contest.
Just look at some examples from history. In 1988 Dukakis came in third in the Iowa caucuses. Yet Iowa was one of only nine states that he ultimately won in the general election. That year Dukakis won the Democratic primaries in Florida and Texas where no one could imagine he would have been the stronger general election candidate in the Democratic field. He soundly lost them both in November.
In 2004, John Kerry clinched the nomination with big wins over John Edwards in Tennessee and Virginia. He won Tennessee by 15 points, and beat Edwards in Virginia 51% to 25%. Does anyone really believe that Kerry was a stronger candidate than Edwards -- a southerner -- against George Bush in Virginia or Tennessee? Kerry lost Virginia 54% to 45% in the general. He was trounced in Tennessee, 57% to 43%.
Examples abound where the winner of a primary is not the stronger candidate to win a general election. Why? Because the voters who affect the outcomes of general elections are largely different people from those who affect the outcomes of primaries.
In general elections, only two groups of people affect the outcome. First are persuadable voters, who always vote in generals, but are switch-hitters. They vote for Republicans in one election and Democrats in the next. And they rarely vote in primaries.
The other group is mobilizable voters. Democratic mobilizables would vote Democratic, but have to be motivated to go to the polls. Sometimes these mobilizable voters can be motivated to vote in a particularly exciting primary. But most don't vote in primaries -- and only rarely in general elections.
Polls show that almost 20% of Clinton supporters and Obama supporters currently say they would refuse to vote for the other candidate in the general election. But history shows that though this may be true in the thick of the primary battle, most of these will in fact vote Democratic in November.
One of the specialties of our firm, the Strategic Consulting Group, is conducting high-intensity field programs for Democratic candidates. In race after race, we find that, with great certainty, we can assume that Democratic primary voters will vote Democratic and Republican primary voters will vote Republican in a general election. Some mobilizable Democratic voters can be found among primary voters who have a history of voting only in certain elections. But most persuadables and mobilizables are found among those who never set foot in a primary polling place.
In general elections, persuadable and mobilizable voters are mainly people who pay much less attention to politics than do primary voters.
The messages used to convince persuadable voters, or to motivate mobilizables, are generally different. With persuadable voters these messages focus on candidate qualities. Persuadables in general elections focus less on issues than primary voters. They are much more heavily driven by the personal qualities of candidates.
General election mobilizable voters are even less engaged. Many feel a generalized sense of powerlessness that convinces them that their votes will have little effect on their lives. Many are young people who are so caught up in their personal lives that politics seems irrelevant. Messages that motivate these voters focus on the voter, not the candidate. In particular, these messages need to give mobilizable voters a sense of their own empowerment.
The one message that works with both persuadable and mobilizable voters is inspiration. Inspiration is what gives people that feeling of empowerment. Inspiration makes persuadable voters feel good about a candidate who inspires them. It also motivates the mobilizables to act.
Barack Obama's ability to inspire is the quality that makes him such an electable general election candidate. Most candidates are really successful either at convincing persuadables, or motivating mobilizables. Barack Obama can do both. I believe he can simultaneously reach out to independent voters and expand the electorate by motivating young people and African Americans to vote at levels we have not seen in modern American politics.
Hillary Clinton's ability to win primaries in "Big States" really has no bearing on her ability to win a general election. The current general election polls show both Clinton and Obama running even with or slightly behind McCain. But campaigns are like reality TV sagas: the plot develops over time. When the primaries are over and a new story line develops, Obama's ability to inspire will make him a much more formidable protagonist in epic battle with McCain than his Democratic rival
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on 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
I think I've come up with a fair plan that will be acceptable to the Hillary campaign and will prevent them from having to keep moving the goalposts in the contest with Obama. (1) Seat the Florida and Michigan delgations and divide the delegates 50/50 to the two candidates. (2) Award extra-super delegate votes to former democratic presidents with each former one term president to receive 50 extra-super delegate votes and each former two term president to receive 1,500 extra-super delegate votes. This would reflect the fact that those who have succeeded in being elected president know vastly more than anyone else and they should be given influence accordingly. I would think the Hillary campaign would readily accept this fair plan although I could understand if they would want to add a provision awarding an additional 500 extra-super delegates to any former president who was impeached but not convicted by the Senate.
"a candidate's ability to win a state primary has virtually nothing to do with his or her ability to win the state in a general election contest."
... and, if you apply that same reasoning to the "steamroller" Obama campaign?
Who's on first?
What her winning the large states means that she has a large following too. Her wins have been diminished because the democrats in their infinite wisdom decided to make the primaries "fair" so no one could easily get an early win. However, if the democrats had followed earlier primaries or a similary winner-take-all format like the Republicans, Clinton would be unbeatable. The articles that keep pointing out how Clinton's arguments are fallacious, it is not because her arguments hold no water. It is because the author has a horse in the race and wants to sway the views of other Americans.
Please explain how Hillary would have been a shoo-in with winner take all? Since Obama has also been winning some large states, and he has more wins......
Point One: Hillary would be way ahead of Obama and close to the required delegate total if it were winner-take-all because she's won states with large numbers of delegates. Point Two: Obama has won virtually no large electoral college states outside of his home state. Point Three: Sure he has more wins, but mainly small states with caucuses instead of primaries, or worse, states that won't come close to being Dem in November, like Wyoming, Mississippi, Texas.
Most of these Dems who voted for her will surely vote for him in November, that's a given. But not all will, and he lost Ohio by 237,000 votes and we'll see about Pennsylvania. If she beats him there by a couple hundred thousand, can you say for sure the state goes Dem in November? I can't. Clinton won re-election there by 10 points in '96, Gore won it in 2000 by 5 points, Kerry won it in '04 by 1.5 points. A Dem who loses Ohio and Pennsylvania (and probably Florida, too, which she won by 300,000 votes with both of them on the ballot) will NOT be measuring for drapes in the White House in '09.
Are we even following the same race here?
We are in the midst of the nomination process, not the general election. It is not winner take all, has no electoral college parity, and in every state a Democrat is guaranteed to win. It is no way comparable to the general. That has been the problem with the lousy way Hillary has run her campaign. She assumed that the nomination process would be a coronation and she could start campaigning for the general. That is a partial reason she has been flummoxed by a supposed political rookie. One needs to consider how well the two candidates have managed their campaigns. I think it says worlds about how they would govern.
Yes exactly- the fantasy that red states are suddently going to vote blue-- because of the Obama fever--- that is simply delusional! I think it is a dangerous delusion in a time when we can't afford to fool ourselves...
Yes-- we're going to all be brought together--- & go blue. I do that this is a fairy tale.
Obama's win of red states is very questionable. he has won with huge percentage of cross over votes-- haven't you read the Karl Rove plan? to have tons of republicans and independents vote for Obama during the primaries because they don't think he can win?
I would love to be wrong- but have read some pretty scary analysis on this whole phenomenon-- Lots of us progressives just might be dreaming... & we might be in for a rude awakening come November.
But, that Karl Rove plan that you're talking about (which I haven't heard about before this) is completely at odds with the Rush Limbaugh plan to get them to go out and vote HILLARY!
Obama's win in Mississippi doesn't mean anything. Mississippi , Texas, Louisiana, and Tennessee will go Republican. Most red states, stay red.
This election will come down to 3 or 4 of 6 states....Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, West Virginia, and Arkansas. Hillary would win these states. Obama would lose them.
Ohio could be THE crucial state. Obama won just 5 of 88 counties in Ohio...all with cities with a high black population. Clinton won many counties with 70-80% of the vote. She won the state by 229,873 votes . Kerry lost Ohio by 118,601 votes. President Clinton won Ohio in 1996 by 288,339 votes.
The DNC MUST revoke their ill-conceived "rules" and seat Florida and Michigan or the nominee won't matter because the Democrats will lose.
A recent poll says 24% of Democratic voters in Florida are unlikely to vote Democratic IF the Florida delegates are not seated.
The general election is about Electoral Votes. Bush supposedly won Florida aby 537 votes. That is why DEMOCRATS will not stand for disenfranchising the votes of Florida and Michigan.
Obama should insist the Florida and Michigan delegates be counted now. I calculate his fair share of the Michigan votes would be 36 delegates. 40.0687% of Uncommitted votes minus Edwards' polling number of 13.7%. Hillary won 73 delegates in Michigan. Obama would be "awarded" 36 delegates.
Counting Florida and Michigan, Hillary would have a net gain of 75 delegates.
A Hillary/Obama ticket is the only winning ticket.
Just because she won the states in the Primary doesn't mean that those same states would vote FOR McBush in NOVEMBER. You are confusing the two things. EITHER one of our candidates has a chance to actually beat McBush, and I think that either one of them would succeed. However, Obama has much larger coat-tails, since he's not fighting against 1) the conservative aversion to the Clinton name, and 2) the VERY high negative numbers that Hillary has got!
Clintons negatives are all built in and she still does better than Obama in the general against McCain. Indeed, even NJ is up for grabs with Obama. Negatives never predict voter behavior anyway.
Right now Hillary runs stronger in the EC not because of IOWA or some other small state It is due to swing states like OH, PA, NJ, AK, TN, FL (100 EVs out of 270 needed) while Obama may bring in CO and WA (20 EVs out of 270 needed).
And Obama's negatives are ALSO built in, and yet according to the polls I'm seeing HE does better than she does. The point is that the polls a) are useless, and b) are deceptive, since you can read whatever the hell you want into them, and pick and choose which polls you want!
Finally, someone who's been saying what I've been saying. Almost every argument the Clintons make sounds disingenuous if not false. States like Indiana, Ohio, and Texas that Hillary wins will not be states she would win in a general election. In fact, a Democrat would have a hard time winning those states in the best of circumstances. Even in California where Hillary won, she would not win now. She was lucky the California primary was relatively early. Nobody knew much about Barack at the time the California primary election took place. In California Barack beats Hill in the polls. It is depressing to see the Clintons fight on when every argument they make does not make sense. Looking at Texas and Ohio primaries as a win for Clinton, I believe the results have probably been skewed. For example, it is highly probable that since the Republican nominee has already been decided, there would be no reason for Republicans who cannot stand the idea that a person of color may become president from voting in the Democratic primary. I know how the Republican majority of people from Texas think and they would definitely start a movement to do something so dastardly. About race: it is not an issue anymore, especially with this candidate. He will be elected to the presidency even if he is the first president that the white majority of America does not elect, but I believe he will get that majority as well.
Right now Hillary runs stronger in the EC not because of TX or IN. It is due to swing states like OH, PA, NJ, AK, TN, FL (100 EVs out of 270 needed) while Obama may bring in CO and WA (20 EVs out of 270 needed).
In addition Obamas inactions regarding FL and MI puts him 16% IN-THE-HOLE (44 EVs out of 270 needed) making EC math improbable for Obama to overcome while likely for Clinton to overcome.
The truth is there is no possible way for Hillary to win the election that doesn't permanently damage the Democratic party and Obama's chances of beating McCain unless Obama's campaign blows up, which isn't very likely considering how well it has been run so far. Good money would be bet that Hillary's campaign would implode first. The fact that the Clintons are just pushing another goalpost only shows the desperation in their campaign and it doesn't seem to matter if their rationalization for staying in is even false anymore than her story of landing in Bosnia was false. So why does anyone care about disproving the false assertions of the Clintons because once you slay one, another will soon pop up? The truth is there are probably a million more reasons the Clintons can cook up to stay in a race they can't win, if voters let them. THE ONLY reasons I can think of to keep Hillary in the race are it feeds more money to the media and the states holding primaries and it helps register more Democratic voters. But at some point soon the negatives are going to overcome any positives if they haven't already.
I say Hillary should exit stage left soon gracefully and start helping Obama prepare to beat McCain.
RJ Crane, topplebush.com
I think this post is a little out of date since now the Clinton camp's primary argument seems to shifting to they must "save" the country from the Republicans, and the Democratic party from Obama, who cannot win a) because he is black and b) because his blackness will be exploited by the Republicans in the form of endless looping back to Rev. Wright. It is possible that this is working too: note that Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Dean now say superdelegates must vote their consciences. Of course this could be money talking as well. Let's not forget the Clinton backers' blackmail letter to Pelosi -- though ,when all is said and done, super-delegates ARE supposed to inform the will of the voters. But just how and why the Clinton camp feels that Hillary Clinton is who the superdelegates should go for remains a mystery to me -- other than in terms of the racist argument. Slimey and low down as it is, it's a stronger argument than she's just the stronger candidate. I mean, she isn't even winning the Democratic primary. How can one extrapolate from this that she'll do better when Republicans are voting too? And, as this post points out, the stuff about her winning the big blue states meaning Obama can't win them in the GE just doesn't make sense. But there you have it. Democratic Primary 08 Mystery no. 1,065.
I could never understand that either. How is it relevant that she can win big states like CA and NY? Most of the states she won have been blue so long that they will go Democratic regardless of which candidate wins the nomination.
Please stop the slander. Since when is the Clinton campaign arguing that she needs to save the Democratic Party from Obama because he's black? Obama's a strong candidate. I suspect he can do just fine without your racism smears. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if you're one of the Obama supporters who's always complaining that Hillary plays the race card.
That Obama is black has nothing to do with why Clinton runs better against McCain. The fact that many Obama supporters want to make everything about race will continue to repulse voters that Obama has never connected with. Clinton speaks and connects with Reagan Dems, Latinos and before Obama's race baiting, with Black voters for over thirty years. She did not suddenly become racist just before the SC primary and there is no hidden or latent racist bone in her body. The Latinos and Reagan Dems have moved against the Dems in the past and Obama has done nothing to connect with them, the real issue he has of course. He is up against up against this structural issue. It is not a white/black/brown issue, the Reagan Dems and Latinos are just left of center, work hard but are not super liberal Obama has not proven that he has worked hard for anything and has not connected with them the same way he connected with others. Clinton and McCain on the other hand is a different story.
Please don't speak for all Latinos. I , am a Latina. My family, friends, and I, will never vote for Mrs. Clinton. I see you are one of those who enjoy endorsing McCain. I assume you are not a Democrat. Obama connects with me just fine. Clinton connects with Republicans quite well. Makes me wonder.
I am stating the numbers and not speaking for you personally. The Latino vote is overwhelmingly going for Clinton or McCain.
He has not worked hard for anything? I don't want to list all the things he has done for fear of getting his resume wrong, but let us just talk about the campaign. Hillary appears the liar and blames it on sleep deprivation after putting out an ad questioning Barack's ability to answer a phone call at three in the morning. He never tried to buff up his resume with sniper stories. He is a law professor. His people are far more organized than she is. He suffered the slings and arrows for having a backbone by going against public sentiment, truly questioning our need to go to Iraq, and being against it. He has revealed his taxes and earmarks. He does not have a case against him (look up Paul vs. Clinton) like the Clintons do which claims they lied under oath and failed to reveal donors. Rev. Wright is not guilty for what he said because everything he said was true; he is guilty of his antics which, frankly, is forcing America to have that conversation they never had about its ugly history. We need to stop being a nation of hypocrites and that is what Obama represents.
Thanks for proving my point. So like I said he has not PROVEN he has worked hard for anything.
To say the Hillary and McCain "worked" for everything they've got and Obama hasn't is another veiled shot at his ethnicity. I would submit that Hillary had a pretty good start at life. McCain is the descendent of Admirals, for goodness sake - think that helped in get into Annapolis at all? Obama came from a mixed racial background which brings a lot of baggage in and of itself. He studied and worked hard to attain his status. He didn't go corporate, as Hillary did, instead he went back to Chicago to organize the poor and jobless. The more you write, the more your bias comes through ntmessage. Oppose Obama if you will and support Hillary or McCain instead.
And the fact remains that the race card was FIRST played by Bill Clinton before and after the South Carolina primary. It was intended to highlight to those who weren't thinking about it the fact that Obama is a black man - nothing less was intended.
I am stating the numbers and not speaking for you personally. The Latino vote is overwhelmingly going for Clinton or McCain.
Please do not misquote and thanks for proving my point anyway. I said that Obama has not worked hard for anything and did not say that Clinton and McCain worked hard for everything they have.
Putting all three however on the same level as each other, he clearly has worked the least of the other two. It has nothing to do with social position, as you seem to imply. Clinton and McCain are much more relatable to the voters that will decide the general election than Obama, who has not proven he has worked hard for anything extraordinary. You further prove my point if you bring race into this because that is the easy thing to say and Obama continues to use it to attack and is clearly irrelevant except in the context of sub voter groups as discussed in the post.
Frankly, Obama has done nothing to speak to or connect with many groups of voters.
History also shows that when Ted Kennedy and Ronald Reagan pursued Carter and Ford to the conventions nin '76 and '80, their parties ending up losing the general election...
Hillary: History lesson? History lesson? We don't need no stinking history lesson.
Much as I want to agree with you, I just can't. In the case of '76, there was NO WAY that any republican would get elected, because of the RECENT Nixon baggage. and then in '80, Carter was a particularly weak candidate......
However, I must say that I wish that Raygun had been the candidate in '76, and that HE would have lost, cause it's almost impossible to win four years after you lose.......
This is not a comparable situation. When an incumbent is credibly pursued by a challenger as was the case in 76 and 80, the incumbent has serious built in problems. Ford had pardoned Nixon and Carter was in the midst of several crises - hostages, inflation, oil.
This is a contested primary for an open seat. Whoever the Democrats nominate will get the votes of Democrats in November. You can take that to the bank. All this talk about McCain Democrats, etc is nonsense. By the time the November election hits, both parties will be duking it out like they always have. It'll be another 49 - 48 election with 3% going to third party candidates and Ohio and Florida in the middle of it.
Absolutely Correct. The general will be very close. It is amazing that the DNC leadership and many Dems in general have not learned this lesson given the refreshed arrogance and internal bickering that have cost them the general election time after time.
It makes not sense. There are still democratic and republican states. Elections are won in the flip-flop states.
What struck me as a little disingenuous about the "big states" argument is that Clinton would like us to believe that how she runs against another Democrat in those states has anything to do with how well she would do against a Republican. In the general election, in Ohio and Texas, there will be Republicans voting too, and this time they're probably not going to have Rush Limbaugh telling then to vote for Hillary.
Clinton will likely win OH, PA, NJ, AK and TN and put FL and MI in play in the general. Obama may put CO and VA in play but likely loses all of the Clintons States. Thats an awful lot of EC to overcome and it takes simple arithmetic, not math or Hope. She is clearly more electable regarded less of all the Obama wishful thinking commentary.
Posted April 1, 2008 | 01:07 PM (EST)