Today, SurveyUSA released a general election polling matchup for both Barack Obama vs. John McCain and Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain. From a cursory look at the math, it would seem as though there's not much of a difference between the two candidates: Obama only scores 4 more electoral votes than Clinton. However, as one can tell from looking at the maps of the Electoral College, Obama has a much better chance of expanding the playing field than Clinton does. Follow me below the fold for a more complete analysis...
Barack Obama vs. John McCain
This is the base case that SUSA has laid out for Obama vs. McCain. A couple of noticeable points: McCain picks up Pennsylvania and New Jersey, while Obama picks up a couple of Western swing states (Nevada, Colorado), a surprising prairie state (North Dakota), and Virginia.
However, this doesn't tell the full tale. For the following scenario, I swung any states that were within 5% of flipping from McCain to Obama. In this situation, things are markedly different:
Best-Case Scenario - Obama
Simply put, this is what a crushing victory on our side would look like. Obama extends his strength in the Midwest by picking up South Dakota and Nebraska, keeps his strength going down South by capturing the Carolinas and Florida, and even picks up deep red states (Texas, Alaska) that no one would think he would have a shot at.
How could this happen? I looked at the relative strength of the states that are supporting the candidates. "Strong" means 15%+ margin, "favorable" is 10%+ strength, "lean" is 5%+ strength, and "tossup" is less than 5% for either candidate.
Obama starts off with a 195-98 edge in states where the candidates hold a double-digit percentage lead. Add in the leaners, and he is up 241-153. In that scenario, he is already only 29 electoral votes away from victory. Even if he only picks up half of the electoral votes that are tossups, it will leave him with a healthy margin over 300 electoral votes.
For the sake of looking at both sides of the coin, I also determined what would happen if everything went against Obama. Here's what happens:
Worst-Case Scenario - Obama
Even in this situation, McCain barely clears the 300 electoral vote hurdle, and Obama holds on to 19 states + DC - the same number that Kerry earned in 2004. This is a testament to the strong base of support that Obama has.
Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain
One noticeable weakness is the Pacific Northwest; Clinton loses both Washington and Oregon. In the South, she picks up Arkansas and Florida, along with West Virginia. However, in the Midwest, McCain is able to take Iowa and Michigan.
What happens if we were to flip all of the leaners in Clinton's direction?
Best-Case Scenario - Clinton
As one can tell, the electoral math is big - Clinton wins by over 100 votes - but it's not the near-300 electoral vote blowout that Obama has in his best-case scenario. This lends to the fact that Clinton isn't as strong in the Midwest or the South. She is able to pick up Missouri as well as Tennessee, as well as regain the Pacific Northwest. However, she makes no inroads in the Mountain West or in the prairie states.
This is largely due to the fact that Clinton doesn't have as many states in her favor. Let's take a look at her strength:
While those states in which the candidates have double-digit leads is slightly less favorable to Clinton - she leads 162-96 - it becomes a much tighter race when leaners are thrown in, when her margin shrinks to 226-212. While it's true that many of the 'toss-up' states are likely to go her way, given their history, it is also a much closer 'base' situation for Clinton than it is with Obama.
Additionally, the worst-case scenario for Clinton is far worse because of her soft strength in those tossup states:
Worst-Case Scenario - Clinton
The map becomes a huge swath of red, largely due to the loss of the Midwest states. This is what winning only 12 states + DC looks like. The reason that the electoral college vote doesn't look as bad is because of Clinton's ability to hold large states. However, this is about as bad as it could get for her.
Conclusions
In surveying the poll data, there are a couple of points that suck out that I'd like to point out:
* Obama does much better in the Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, the Midwest/Great Lakes region, and the Coastal South. The fact that he is within range of picking off states like the Dakotas and the Carolinas speak to this strength. The fact that he could force the GOP to actively defend Texas - the main base of its electoral votes in the general election - is astounding.
* Clinton's areas of strength, relative to Obama, is the Deep South, the Appalachia states, and Florida. This explains her numbers in West Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Furthermore, she loses by a lesser margin in the Deep South states (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi) than does Obama. However, she doesn't come close enough to making any of these states reasonable competitive. Furthermore, it's undeniable that she outperforms Obama in Florida as of now.
Simply put, Obama is much better at holding traditional Democratic strongholds in recent presidential elections - notably the Pacific Northwest and the Great Lakes states - than Clinton does. Furthermore, he is able to challenge McCain much more across the nation than Clinton is able to. Given the current electoral map, it's quite possible that Clinton would have to spend ample amounts of time trying to hold onto those regions, moving us back to the same old playing field from 2000 and 2004. Obama provides us with a much better chance to move forward to a truly transformative election.