Red, Blue States , Swing States & Electability -- Let's Look at the Argument Seriously

[LiveLiberally]

GD-P has been awash today with arguments about whether Clinton or Obama is more electable based on their performance in traditional "BLUE" states and their victories in swing or bell-weather states. Can we step back for a moment & look at the issue on its own merits rather than simply choosing an argument that best supports our particular candidate?

The Argument for and against Hillary Clinton:

FOR: Hillary has won more primaries in the "Big Blue" states -- namely Massachusetts, New York, California, and New Jersey. This suggests that she is the more competitive candidate in large democratic strongholds that must remain Blue for us to win in November. She also won Ohio by a decisive margin, indicating that she is stronger in this classic bell-weather state.

AGAINST: Hillary is simply not winning "the big blue states" (outside of New York and Mass and the former was a gimme) by large enough margins to argue that she is dominating the "popular vote" in democratic strongholds. Any win by 10 points or less (i.e. California and New Jersey) is hardly a blow-out and the vast majority of her democratic votes will vote Obama if he is the nominee. As for Ohio, it is a bell-weather state in a typical election, but this election is highly atypical and resembles more 1960 when JFK did not win Ohio than it does more recent contests.

The Argument for and against Barack Obama:

FOR: Obama has done well in swing states such as Missouri, Kansas, and Virginia. The best way to win in November is to EXPAND the democratic state base rather than simply count on the same old standbys and then agonize over Florida and Ohio. Obama has also done well in smaller BLUE states such as Washington, Minnesota, and Wisconsin that must be part of a winning 50-state strategy. Finally, Obama has won in caucus states by attracting unprecedented numbers of new caucus voters, an indication of a strong grass-roots support that could be key in the GOTV effort in November.

AGAINST: Obama has disproportionately won in caucus states, which raises the question of whether he would win the popular democratic vote beyond the dedicated activists and those able to attend caucuses. Obama has also won in a number of RED states that are unlikely to go BLUE in November and hence aren't relevant to the electability argument.


FINALLY, as this campaign drags on, it is important to question the relevance of primary voting totals for the general election. It is quite likely for example, that the California primary total would be different had it remained in June rather than being moved to super-Tuesday. The most reliable indicator now of national election trends in states that have already voted are the state "head-to-head" polls. Here Obama is currently holding an edge against Clinton in BLUE states. For example, in the latest California head-to-head poll Obama leads McCain 61-34% while Clinton leads McCain 58-35%. http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx

[LiveLiberally]

1. Anyone? My question is this:

Based on the above arguments for and against Clinton and Obama, does a Red, Blue, Swing state argument about electability clearly point to one or the other as the better candidate to win in November?

[Guava Jelly]

3. I live on the Kansas and Missouri border

And I support Obama.
He did very well in kansas.
Barack Obama 27,172 74.0% 15
Hillary Rodham Clinton 9,462 25.8 6
John Edwards 53 0.1 0
Dennis J. Kucinich 35 0.1 0
Uncommitted 8 0.0 0
Bill Richardson 1 0.0 0

Mike Huckabee 11,627 59.6% 36
John McCain 4,587 23.5 0
Ron Paul 2,182 11.2 0
Mitt Romney 653 3.3 0
Uncommitted 84 0.4 0
Fred D. Thompson 61 0.3 0
Rudolph W. Giuliani 34 0.2 0
Others 288 1.5 0

[Texas Hill Country]

5. yes, they matter

yes, Ohio has missed only twice since 1896. The last time was 1964 (IIRC) and has been perfect since. (An interesting side note is that since 1912, the candidate that has won both OH and NM has won every time.)

Kansas at this point is not a swing state... that would be a very hard argument to make.

Hillary will most likely take OH, would prolly be close in FL, but with the expanding hispanic population, she will give him a heck of a run all over the southwest, including AZ, which would stretch the Republican budgets in places they "shouldnt" have to be spending. Will be interesting.

Barak, on the other hand, will prolly loose the "reagan" democrats in Michigan, loose the most of the independents and will gain very few republicans if any. He, unfortunate as it may be, will also prolly not get much of the Hispanic vote... He will also get slaughtered on experience and foreign policy/national security.

[Qutzupalotl]

2. Any generic Democrat would win the big blue states.

But if a candidate has enough genuine crossover appeal to move a few red states into the blue column, you likely have a victory.

Hillary's wins in the traditionally blue states are irrelevant in the general election, where enthusiasm and new voters -- or lack thereof -- will decide our party's fate.

[NEDem]

4. From the Omaha, Nebraska paper on Tuesday

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10274052

Published Tuesday | March 4, 2008
Obama could make contest in Nebraska
BY ROBYNN TYSVER
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER


Ed Haefele is a Republican but not a rock-ribbed soldier of the GOP.

Click to Enlarge

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois speaks at a town hall meeting with veterans in San Antonio on Monday.
In 1964 he crossed party lines to vote for Lyndon B. Johnson. It was the last time that Haefele and Nebraska backed a Democratic presidential contender.

Today, Haefele is considering another trek across the partisan divide to support Barack Obama. He says he admires Obama's eloquence and intellect, despite some of the Democrat's "hare-brained" ideas, such as gun control.

"I think if I was in a closed voting booth and if I had a choice between (John) McCain or Obama, I would go with Obama," said Haefele, a retired political science professor from Pennsylvania who has lived in Alliance, Neb., since 1988.

"The man is a phenomenon," Haefele said.

Haefele is the type of Republican that Obama says he could attract in the fall, but is Obama enough of a wunderkind to pull an LBJ in Nebraska? Could he woo enough independents and Republicans like Haefele to pick off electoral votes in a red state like Nebraska?

It's not impossible, said several political observers and even some Republicans.

<more at link above>