Hillary vs. Barack: The Difference Between "Will" and "Could"

by: Xavier

Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:35:29 AM EDT

I wanted to respond, briefly, to the post about "How Obama makes us competitive everywhere."

As the primary season winds to a close, the Democratic Party is left with a choice between two historic candidates, with barely a fraction of a percentage of the 4,000 pledged delegates awarded separating them.

As our Party prepares to move into a general election campaign against John McCain, it becomes clear that the choice our Party must make is between more than just a candidate with more popular votes (a sign of broad support) and a candidate with more pledged delegates (an advantage won in red-state caucuses - a testament to the campaign's organizing prowess).

The choice is between an experienced, tested candidate who will beat John McCain and usher in a new progressive era for this country and a candidate who could beat John McCain to fulfill promises of change.

Sen. Clinton has put together what, by any measure, is a winning general election coalition of women, seniors, Latinos, working-class voters, and rural Americans.

As the mainstream media did its best to coronate Sen. Obama the nominee in February, March, April, and now, May, this coalition only got stronger--showing up in larger numbers and making even more of a statement (California, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Indiana, etc.) In fact, Sen. Clinton has won more than 500,000 more votes than sen. Obama since March 1st.

1. Women - Among all women, Hillary leads 51% to 43%, and since the round of primaries that started on March 4th she has led 55 % to 44%. Among white women, Hillary leads 61% to 34% and among Latinas, Hillary leads 58% to 25% for those states reporting Hispanics in exit polling.

2. Seniors - In all the contests so far, Hillary has won 58% of those ages 60+ compared to Senator Obama’s 35%. Among those who have voted since March 4, Hillary leads 62% to 36%.

3. Latinos - Hillary has won Latino voters by 56% to 30% – nearly two to one; excluding the presidential candidates who subsequently dropped out, Hillary has won Latinos 65% to Senator Obama’s 35%. In California’s primary, where Latinos comprised 30% of the voting population, Hillary won 67% to Senator Obama’s 32%. Latino turnout in New Mexico’s Democratic caucus was 35%, and among Latinos Hillary won 62% to Senator Obama’s 36%.

4. Working Class - Hillary has consistently won the working class vote in key Democratic swing states, and on average she leads 50% to 45% among voters earning under $50,000. In Ohio, Hillary won these voters 56% to 42%; in Pennsylvania 54% to 46%, in West Virginia, Hillary won these voters 71% to 23%; and in, Kentucky she won the working class vote 67% to 29%. Furthermore, Hillary leads among union voters 52% to 43%.

5. Rural Voters - Hillary has been winning an overwhelming percentage of America’s rural voters – 53 % to 41%. Since March 1, Hillary has won 58% and Senator Obama 40% of rural voters. In Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Texas, Hillary won over 60% of rural voters.

One of the most common misconceptions about the primary thus far and general election strength is that "Obama is bringing more people into the process."

In reality, both candidates are bringing more people into the process. Everyday Americans from all walks of life have been energized by Hillary's campaign and, it can be argued, she is responsible for bringing more new voters into this process than Sen. Obama. The best example of this is the turnout in states which held both a primary and a caucus.

In every state, the participation in the primary was far greater and much more diverse than in the caucus. Take Nebraska for example. Obama won the Nebraska caucus with 68% of the vote. Less than 40,000 people participated. In the May 13th primary, nearly 94,000 (over 100% more) people participated, and Hillary and Obama were only 2% apart (47% and 49%). But turnout is up across the board, and the increase can be attributed to groups which favor Clinton (women, Latinos, seniors).

But the popular vote and increased turnout in the primary would be less compelling were it not for Sen. Clinton's strength in the electoral college.

The states Hillary Clinton has won in the primary have a total of 308 electoral votes; the states Senator Obama has won have a total of 224 electoral votes. Hillary won 7 of the 8 states with the most electoral votes – Senator Obama won his home state of Illinois.

ABC News published Karl Rove’s electoral vote analysis, which states that if the election were held today, John McCain would win 238 electoral votes while Barack Obama would win 221, with 79 electoral votes in toss-up states that are too close to call. Hillary would win 259 electoral votes against John McCain’s 206 electoral votes with 73 electoral votes in toss-up states that are too close to call. (ABC News, May 19, 2008)

A different analysis (www.electoral-vote.com) shows that Hillary outperforms Senator Obama against John McCain in the key swing states with the largest number of electoral votes – Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Missouri – as well as smaller swing states like New Hampshire, West Virginia and Arkansas.  
 
Importantly, Hillary leads Senator McCain in Florida, Ohio, West Virginia and Arkansas – all states in which Senator Obama trails Senator McCain.  And a May 22, 2008 Rasmussen poll shows Hillary leading Senator McCain in Kentucky 51/42, while Senator Obama trails Senator McCain by 25 points.   

 But the maps (which I will include later) belie Hillary's broad geographic support.

The following table is very telling.  The first column is the number of counties in each state  won by Sen. Clinton, and the second column is the total number of counties in the state.

State Hillary Won State
Arizona  13 15
Arkansas  72 75
California  39 58
Indiana  83 92
Kentucky  118 120
Missouri  109 115
New Jersey  16 21
New Mexico  27 33
New York (home state) 61 6
Ohio  83 88
Oklahoma  76 77
Pennsylvania  60 67
Tennessee  86 95
Texas  227 254
West Virginia  55 55

But if that's not enough, look at this map of one of the swing states Democrats have to win in November (and in which Sen. Clinton holds a huge lead over Sen. McCain

And as for the "tough districts" for Democrats in November, Congresscritters could have no better ally than Sen. Clinton:

In 2006, Democrats retook Congress by picking up 31 seats.  20 of those freshman Democrats are in GOP-leaning districts that voted for President Bush in 2004.  These districts are heavily rural – half of them are more than 40% rural.  
 
Of those 20 “tough” districts, Hillary has won 16, most by large margins, as posted on the Politico on May 18, 2008.

• AL 05
• PA 10
• TX 22
• AZ 01
• MS 01
• NJ 03
• NY 25
• NY 26
• OH 15
• OH 16

 What all of this data proves is that Sen. Clinton is doing strongest among the two groups that lead to a Bush victory over John Kerry (Latinos and white women) and that she is best positioned to not only win the states Kerry win in '04 (meaning she would only have to win FL or OH -- two states where she currently has leads over McCain, while Obama is tied or behind) and actually expand the Democratic map (to include Arkansas, West Virginia) and to put new states into play (New Mexico, Nevada).

Throughout this nomination process, the Democratic candidate with the momentum at any given point has typically polled better against McCain in general election match-ups. Not so lately. As you can see, in both national tracking polls, Hillary Clinton performs exactly 5 points better against John McCain than Barack Obama does. This is especially ironic since Hillary's relative strength against McCain in GE match-ups corresponds with the widely held view that Barack has essentially clinched the nomination. People don't seem to have gotten that memo.

So, is this enough for Clinton to base a claim that she is the better general election candidate? After all, presidents are not elected on a national basis, but rather state by state. Clinton likes to make the case that her stronger performance against Barack in important states in the primaries will translate to a stronger performance in those states in the general. But is that true and could it serve as a compelling argument to superdelegates? Gallup's latest analysis of its tracking poll results has some interesting findings that lend some credence to Hillary's claim.

"In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.

"In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain. Both Democrats are statistically tied with him for the fall election."

Gallup goes on:

The question is, do Clinton's popular victories over Obama in states that encompass three-fifths of national voters mean Clinton has a better chance than Obama of winning electoral votes this fall?

And concludes:

Clinton appears to have the stronger chance of capitalizing on her primary strengths in the general election.

But it's not quite that cut and dried. There are many blue states that either Democrat would win and many red ones that neither would. So what about the swing states, which is where the election will be won or lost?

However, just focusing on the swing states in Clinton's and Obama's respective win columns, the two are fairly similar. Clinton beats McCain in her purple states (including Florida and Michigan) by 49% to 43%, while Obama slightly trails McCain (43% to 46%) in these states -- a nine-point swing in the gap in Clinton's favor. Conversely, Obama beats McCain in his purple states (49% to 41%), while Clinton trails McCain by one point, 45% to 46%, in the same states -- also a nine-point swing in the gap in Obama's favor.