Ok, so the headline is a wee bit misleading. Ohio matters, just as the other 49 states matter. But perhaps it doesn't matter quite as much as you might think for our prospects in November, particularly if Obama is the nominee. And I got you to click on what will be my first diary ever on Daily Kos. Let me explain further.
But first, a warning: this diary is based on single swing state polls for an election that is 8 months away. Almost all of these polls come from the often questionable Rasmussen Reports (the IA polls are from SUSA). And I understand that these polls guarantee absolutely nothing. Nonetheless, there are some some interesting trends that I think speak significantly to several points that have been raised ad nauseum in the ongoing electability discussion.
First, many Clinton backers advance the theory that electability in OH and FL is paramount, because those are the states that we must carry. Second, they suggest that results in the primary election in a given state are predictive of who would be a stronger candidate in the general election. Most notably, Jerome Armstrong at MyDD has argued that Ohio and Pennsylvania are the big 2 states that we absolutely must win, and that Clinton's double-digit leads in those states against Obama suggest that she is the best candidate to win these two states. (Of course, Clinton's leads seem to shrink significantly in every state where Obama gets time to campaign, and he has not gotten to OH or PA yet. But let's put that argument aside for the moment.)
Do these arguments hold water? First, some polls from the "big" states that are heavily focused on both by the media and Democratic circles. Ohio was tremendously important in 2000 and especially 2004. Florida was tremendously important in 2000. Missouri is typically referred to as the bellwether state, having sided with all but one eventual victor in the last century. This has led to a bit of groupthink in media circles and liberal blogs that suggests that these states, particularly Ohio or Florida, will be the make or break state for the Democratic nominee. Rasmussen's first matchup polls hold some bad news for those who expect that our key to this election will be to go all in for wins in OH and/or FL:
Ohio:
McCain 41
Obama 39
McCain 44
Clinton 43
Florida:
McCain 41
Obama 39
McCain 44
Clinton 42
Missouri:
McCain 42
Obama 40
McCain 43
Clinton 42
Pennsylvania:
Obama 42
McCain 41
Clinton 46
McCain 40
While both Clinton and Obama hold statistically insignificant leads in PA, McCain has statistically insignificant leads in OH, MO, and FL over both. Note that McCain's base of support is lower in all 3 states where he leads against Obama, suggesting that we may still be looking at some small name recognition effects with Obama. The main point, however, is that the results seem to shoot a hole in the argument that we can project Clinton's lead in OH or uncontested win in FL forward to the general election.
Now, a 1-point lead 8 months before an election means nothing. We can win all 4 listed above with Clinton as our nominee. But we are looking at a real down-to-the-wire slog to get each of these critical states back into the Democratic column with Clinton and perhaps Obama as well, unless the latter can boost his poll numbers significantly with more time in these states. Given the Democratic trend this year, that's disappointing. However, there are some smaller red and purple states where heavy campaigning has already taken place.
Iowa:
Obama 55
McCain 38
McCain 48
Clinton 44
Colorado:
Obama 46
McCain 39
McCain 49
Clinton 35
(Schaeffer 44
Udall 43)
Nevada:
Obama 50
McCain 38
McCain 49
Clinton 40
New Hampshire
Obama 49
McCain 36
Clinton 43
McCain 41
(Shaheen 49
Sununu 41)
There are a couple of things I glean from these polls. One is further confirmation that winning a state in a primary, contrary to Jerome's implication, does not necessarily mean that you are the best general election candidate in that state. Despite the fact that Clinton won NH and NV, Obama runs 11 and 21 points better in these two states, respectively. I'll note in passing that the NV poll invalidates the "Clinton's Latino support means she'll run stronger out west" argument as well.
The second is that we need to spend a lot less time focusing on who can win Ohio, as the Clinton backers suggest, and a lot more on how we can get to 270 electoral votes. Adding IA, NV, and CO, where Obama leads by 7-17 points, to the column of states we won in the 2004 election produces a result of 272 electoral votes for the Democrats. Note that Clinton trails by 4-14 points in these same states, which means that it's a pretty substantial uphill climb to win them. The Colorado deficit is particularly concerning given the closeness of the Senate race there.
In sum, this will be a close, fiercely fought general election. But we may be choosing between two very different general election scenarios along with our choice of nominee. With Clinton as the nominee, we are looking at yet another down-to-the-wire attempt to win the Kerry states + Ohio/Florida. With Obama as the nominee, we start with the Republicans behind in states that total at least enough electoral votes to win the White House. Your choice.