I was sifting through some of the cross-tabulations in the recent Quinnipiac Poll and came across some interesting results.
Quinnipiac not only ran through a whole gauntlet of permutations related to prospective general election results, but they also broke the result downs down between Red, Blue, and Purple states. I think we can all agree that it's the Purple states that are most important. If the Democratic nominee is winning Blue states, then she'll likely be winning the election in a blowout. Likewise, if the Republican is snagging Blue states, then Election Day is going to be an unhappy occasion for us.
Here is the headline: Clinton does a little better than Barack Obama and John Edwards in the Blue states. There is little difference between the three candidates in Red states. But Obama and Edwards do MUCH better than Clinton in Purple states. Numbers below the break for the math wonks amongst us.
IN PURPLE STATES
Obama
v Giuliani +1
v McCain +4
v Thompson +13
v Romney +16
AVERAGE +8.5
Edwards
v Giuliani -2
v McCain +4
v Thompson +12
v Romney +20
AVERAGE +8.5
Clinton
v Giuliani -6
v McCain -5
v Thompson -2
v Romney +8
AVERAGE -1.25
Edwards and Obama each lead their Republican rivals by an average of 8.5 percentage points in Purple states. Clinton trails by 1.25 percent. That's roughly a 10-point swing, and I don't need to tell you what that means in Electoral Math 101. Clinton's losing to Fred Thompson, for goodness sakes.
For comparison's sake, here are the performances in Blue states.
IN BLUE STATES
Obama
v Giuliani +10
v McCain +12
v Thompson +22
v Romney +21
AVERAGE +16.25
Edwards
v Giuliani +1
v McCain +6
v Thompson +23
v Romney +19
AVERAGE +12.25
Clinton
v Giuliani +12
v McCain +16
v Thompson +25
v Romney +24
AVERAGE +19.25
So, here is where HRC is making up ground. Unfortunately, she's making up ground in the wrong places. We don't care if we win Rhode Island 65-35 or 60-40.
Finally, in Red states.
Obama
v Giuliani -6
v McCain -12
v Thompson -6
v Romney -3
AVERAGE -6.75
Edwards
v Giuliani -8
v McCain -10
v Thompson -5
v Romney +3
AVERAGE -5
Clinton
v Giuliani -9
v McCain -11
v Thompson -7
v Romney EVEN
AVERAGE -6.75
Not much difference here, although Edwards does ever so slightly better. Edwards also did the worst in Blue states ... what that seems to suggest is that if Edwards is the nominee, particularly against a "moderate" like Giuliani or McCain, the results could fall among somewhat non-traditional lines -- more states will be in play. We might have to defend New Jersey, for instance, but maybe we could win Tennessee -- stuff like that. This might actually be advantageous because a "broader" election will tend to be more expensive than a "narrower" election and we should probably have fundraising advantages in this cycle, but your mileage may vary.
Anyway, back to the main point: Clinton's strengths are in exactly the wrong places in terms of the Electoral Math. You want to know why Clinton does so poorly in the Purple states? Check out the below video starting out at about 2:15 minutes in. Check out the strength of the negative reaction to Clinton. Yes, you might not like what the people in this video have to say. But unfortunately, they're people with votes.
Clinton is very polarizing. In fact, she is George W. Bush polarizing. Think about the degree of hatred that you feel for Shrub. That is how many voters of every shade of purple and red feel about Hillary Clinton.
The recent Pew Poll actually got at this question (warning: link is PDF, and you'll want to scroll down to page 9/10 to see what I'm talking about).
In this poll, they ask Giuliani voters in a potential Clinton-Giuliani matchup whether their vote is a "Pro-Giuliani" vote, or an "Anti-Clinton" vote. 20% say their vote is primarily Pro-Giuliani ... 21% say their vote is primarily Anti-Clinton. It is quite rare for the 'Anti' vote to outweigh the 'Pro' vote, although this pattern did manifest itself among Kerry voters in 2004 (e.g. they were more Anti-Bush than Pro-Kerry).
We are up against an inherently weak field of Republicans at an exceptionally weak time for them in the political cycle. Just about the only way they can win is if they're mobilized somehow, and Hillary is one of the only ways to mobilize them. These people are NOT bluffing.
...
If you're a Clinton supporter, more power to you. We'll have to work together to fight the propaganda onslaught in the general election, and to win back those voters that she might lose in swing states. However, I would urge you to think carefully about your vote, and I would urge those of you in the Dodd, or Kucinich, or Gore, or Biden, or Ron Paul camps to consolidate your support behind either Obama or Edwards.