After her victories on Tuesday in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has released its “Path to the Presidency”, in which it lists many reasons why she will go on to defeat Obama and why she is a better general election candidate to go up against John McCain. Here are some of the main claims made and other claims that are being made by the campaign in general and why I just don’t see it the same way her campaign does.
• Hillary has won the big states such as New York, New Jersey, California, and New York that Democrats will need to win in November in order to beat John McCain.
• Hillary has won critical swing states such as Ohio, Florida, and Michigan that Democrats will need to win in November in order to beat John McCain.
• Hillary is more experienced than Barack Obama, and thus would match up better against John McCain in the general election.
• John McCain will beat Obama among independents because ofObama’s lack of national security credentials.
At first when you read these claims, you may think they sound reasonable. Let’s dig through them and see if they can, in fact, stand up to scrutiny.
The “Big State” Argument
Hillary’s campaign and her supporters have often made the point that because she has been successful in several large traditionally Democratic states like New Jersey, New York, and California, she is in a better position to win those key states in November. First of all, does anyone seriously believe that if Obama is the nominee, he will have trouble carrying these three states? I don’t think so, and this mere fact should disqualify this argument in itself, but there is more.
The “Big State” argument assumes that by winning the primaries in these three states, Hillary Clinton is more likely to win them against John Mccain in the fall. If this is true, it is assumed that winning the Democratic primaries actually makes a candidate more likely to win in a general election when Republicans, Democrats, and Independents will be voting in that state. The evidence against this claim is strong.
A New York Survey USA poll taken February 14th, after Hillary’s February 5th victory in the state shows Hillary with a 52-41 lead in a head to head matchup against John McCain, a margin of 11 points. The same poll shows Obama with a 57-36 lead over McCain, a margin of 21 points. Despite the fact that Hillary won the Democratic primary, Obama actually would start out in much stronger position to win New York when matched up against John McCain.
How about California? A California Survey USA poll taken February 22nd, several weeks after Hillary’s February 5th victory in the state shows Hillary with a 58-35 lead in a head to head matchup against John McCain, a margin of 23 points. The same poll shows Obama with a 61-34 lead over McCain, a margin of 27 points. Clearly, the idea that somehow winning the primaries in big Democratic states makes Hillary more likely to win them than Obama is simply not true. Not only will either candidate likely win all of them, but Obama appears to actually be in better position than does Hillary. I’m not making this point to claim that these polling results will predict what will happen in November, but it is clear that winning the primary in these states has not put Hillary in a stronger position than Obama to actually win them. I will explain why this is so in the last section.
The “Swing State” Argument
One argument that Hillary’s campaign will likely try to use in order to gain super delegate support is to point out that she has won several critical swing states, such as Ohio, Florida, and Michigan, than Democrats will need to win in November. Again, this argument rests on the questionable notion that “I won the democratic primary in this state, therefore I will be in a better position to win it in November.” Let’s take a look again, at the early head to head polls to see if Hillary will start out with some sort of advantage over Obama in these critical states.
Obviously there are no head to head polls from Ohio after Hillary’s primary victory there, but there are two polls, one from Rasmussen and one from Survey USA that were both taken in mid February and that paint very different pictures. The Survey USA poll shows Clinton winning by 10 points in Ohio over McCain and Obama winning by 3 points. The Rasmussen poll shows Hillary 3 points behind McCain and Obama 1 point behind McCain. One poll shows Hillary stronger in general election matchup against McCain and one poll shows Obama stronger. Hillary claims that because she beat Obama by 9% in the Democratic Primary, she would be stronger in November. Early polls show the candidates with roughly equal strength in the state. The best sign for Obama from the Ohio primary is that Independents who voted favored him by 8 points over Hillary.
How about Pennsylvania? I fully expect Hillary to win the primary there, but if she wins, will she be more likely to win in a general election? A recent Rasmussen poll of PA shows Obama leading McCain 49-39, a margin of 10 points. The same poll shows Hillary losing so McCain 42-44, a 2 point margin.
Michigan has already voted and part of Hillary’s argument for keeping her name on the ballot was that she didn’t want to have to go back and “pick up the pieces” in the general election. A Rasmussen poll of Michigan in February, well after Michigan’s primary vote, showed Obama leading McCain 47-39 in the state, a margin of 8 points. The same poll showed Hillary Clinton tied with McCain 44-44.
While it is clear that Hillary will start out stronger than Obama in Florida, John McCain has a clear advantage in the state regardless of who is our nominee. Again I bring up these polls not to make an attempt to predict what will happen in November, I bring them up to point out that Hillary’s swing state argument doesn’t hold up too well. Her and Obama appear to have equal strength in Ohio and Obama appears to have more initial strength than she does in Michigan, a state where he took his name off the ballot entirely.
Another reason why this argument about the three (four? PA?) critical swing states doesn’t seem to work well is because it ignores every other swing state that will be contested in the general election. Polls taken after February 5th have generally shown that Obama would start out performing much better against John McCain than Hillary would in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Kansas, and Nevada. Head to head matchups within the last month have shown Hillary losing or tied in these states. They have also shown Obama winning most of these states and typically running stronger than Hillary does if he doesn’t beat McCain strongly. Not only did Obama actually win the Democratic primary/caucus in these states, but he can actually claim he has a better chance of winning them in November than does Hillary because that statement is backed up by polls that prove it.
Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania make up an important chunk of 68 electoral votes, but the other states I mentioned make up an equally important chunk of 76 electoral votes and Barack Obama has shown himself to be much stronger against McCain in those states based on polls, not solely on the results of the Democratic contests there.
The “More Experienced” Argument
Now let’s step away from the polls and the swing states to talk about the candidates themselves. On the Clinton campaign’s “Path to the Presidency” site, they have stated that “John McCain will diminish any perceived advantage Obama has with independents” because he is “untested in national security.” Let’s assume for a moment that this is true, and that Hillary Clinton has stronger national security credentials than Barack Obama. This would mean that her campaign is essentially placing the measure of a good candidate on how much “experience” that candidate has. Let’s assume that she beats Obama and has to go up against John McCain in a general election. If the measure of success is this notion of “experience”, John McCain would beat Hillary on her own terms. He has military experience which she does not have, and has more experience in the Senate than she does as well. My point is that if the argument is about “years spent in Washington”, Hillary may have more than Obama, but she would lose that same argument to McCain.
Now, you may be thinking, “Well, at least she is more equipped to go up against John McCain, and at least has more experience than Obama.” Consider this: Obama is in a much better position to offer a contrast to John McCain. He will put the emphasis of his campaign on the fact that he hasn’t been sitting in Washington, DC his whole life and he will be able to turn McCain’s strength into a weakness by saying, “You being in Washington too long has not resulted in good judgment on the most important national security issues of the day. You have been wrong.”
If the strengths of our candidate are experience, national security credentials, years spent in Washington, etc., John McCain will be able to win because he owns that turf. He has more of it than Hillary and Obama.
If the strengths of our candidate are a different kind of experience, good judgment on national security issues like Iraq, and outsider status, that candidate will offer a sharp contrast to John McCain instead of attempting win by playing on his home court.
The "Independents" Argument
The idea that somehow independents will flock to Hillary in the general and not Obama because of her perceived strength on national security doesn’t seem to be based on much at all. First of all, I would question the notion that Hillary is somehow “tested” on national security issues. What is clear, however, is that independents who have decided to take part in the Democratic primaries up to this point have favored Obama overwhelmingly over Clinton. That can only be a good sign for Obama in the general election. The fact is that speaking in terms of the general election, it isn’t really all that important who wins more true blue democrats – they will support either candidate. The real test is how many independents are voting and who they are voting for, because they are the critical block we will need to win in November.
The reason that Obama is stronger than Hillary in the general election polls in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, and all those other Midwest and Northwest states I mentioned is because of one single word: independents. He has much more appeal among them than she does, based on how they have voted so far. I live in Washington, which many people would consider to be a swing state. I know many independent voters and have lived on both sides of the state. I can tell you with confidence that Obama would be a much stronger candidate here. Hillary could win, sure, but Obama has a much better shot.